Science and Operational Applications Research for RADARSAT-2

Announcement of Opportunity

Publication date: September 4, 2014

Application deadline: October 31, 2014

Table of contents

  1. Introduction
  2. AO Objectives
  3. Eligibility Criteria
  4. Applications
  5. Evaluation
  6. Funding
  7. Funding Agreement
  8. Privacy Notice Statement
  9. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
  10. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

1. Introduction

Applicants are asked to read the following Announcement of Opportunity (AO) thoroughly before submitting their applications. This AO has been 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(s), the latter document(s) will take precedence.

With the launch of the RADARSAT-2 satellite, Earth observation (EO) entered a new era, bringing to prominence the advantages of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) sensors and offering new opportunities for academia. RADARSAT-2 is equipped with a full range of new capabilities: high-resolution modes (three-metre resolution and one-metre Spotlight mode), Multi-Look Fine mode, fully polarimetric capabilities (quad polarization) and dual polarization for RADARSAT-1 beams. This AO offers the possibility of exploring new RADARSAT-2 capabilities by using them within diverse applications. A more detailed description of the RADARSAT-2 operating modes and beam modes offered through this AO can be found in Appendix A.

This AO is being offered to Canadian universities and post-secondary institutions in fulfilment of the Earth Observation Applications and Utilization (EOAU) Division's goals to support the training and development of highly qualified people (HQP) in the field of space-borne SAR techniques and methodologies using RADARSAT-2 data, to foster research in the development of RADARSAT-2 EO products and services, and to facilitate access to RADARSAT-2 data and increase its use.

The results of a Canadian Space Agency (CSA) evaluation of the Earth Observation Data and Imagery Utilization Program show that the education and use of SAR data within Canadian universities remains limited despite Canada's reputation in this technology at the international level. With the objective to increase the use and integration of SAR data within the Canadian academic community as well as the ability and expertise of scientists to conduct research focused on SAR data, the Scientific and Operational Applications of RADARSAT-2 (SOAR) coordination office of the EOAU section is expanding its activities with the implementation of an AO mechanism including funding support through the CSA Class Grants & Contributions Program.

This AO is consistent with the terms and conditions of the CSA Class Grant and Contribution Program to Support Research, Awareness and Learning in Space Science and Technology – Research Component.

The following describes the AO objectives, criteria for eligibility, funding, proposal requirements and details related to the selection process.

2. AO Objectives

This AO is directed at Canadian universities and post-secondary institutions, inviting proposals that are oriented predominantly towards fundamental and applied research in the EO development of applications that utilize the new capabilities provided by RADARSAT-2, i.e. high-resolution modes, fully polarimetric capabilities and dual polarization. The main goal of this AO is to foster the development of a critical mass of researchers and HQP in Canada in the field of SAR EO.

Specific objectives are as follows:

Projects supported under this AO must be linked with the following strategic outcomes:

Table 1: Link between AO objectives and CSA Grant and Contribution Program to Support Research in Space Science and Technology (G&C Program)
G&C Program Objective AO Objectives Immediate Strategic Outcomes Intermediate Strategic Outcomes
To foster the continuing development of a critical mass of researchers and HQP in Canada in areas relevant to the priorities of the CSA. To increase the number of academic researchers in Canada using SAR data, specifically new RADARSAT-2 capabilities, and carry out high-level research and development activities that contribute to EO science and applications. Maintained and/or increased space focus in universities and post-secondary institutions. Increased space-related science and technology capacity in targeted areas.

3. Eligibility Criteria

3.1 Eligible Recipients

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

3.2 Eligible Projects

In order to be eligible, projects must be linked to the CSA's priorities and to the CSA Class Grant & Contribution Program objectives and strategic outcomes.

Grants under this AO will be awarded to initiatives that contribute to scientific disciplines and technologies relevant to the CSA's research priorities and strategic outcomes, and to the operations of organizations dedicated to relevant space-related research.

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.

The AO focuses on basic and applied research & development (R&D) on algorithms, methods and applications using the new modes/capabilities offered by RADARSAT-2. An application is expected to be at the development, feasibility, or pre-operational stage. Activities that are of an operational or commercial nature will not be supported.

3.3 Link to CSA Priorities and Canada's S&T Strategy

Projects supported under this AO should be aligned with Canada's S&T Strategy and must be related to at least one of the CSA priority areas, which are detailed in the Canadian Space Strategy available on the CSA's website. For EO, these are:

Within the context of these CSA priority areas, this AO supports the EOAU Program Activity. The EOAU division manages programs and activities that support and promote the development and use of EO technologies and applications in order to:

3.4 Link to the CSA's G&C Program Objectives

Projects supported under this AO must also contribute to the achievement of the following objective of the CSA Class Grant and Contribution Program's Research Component:

3.5 Data Sources

The CSA will provide access to a limited number of RADARSAT-2 images to meet the objectives of the selected projects for their development purposes. This imagery may include new acquisitions and/or previously archived data. A limit of 20 scenes per proposal has been set. However, a greater number of scenes may be considered provided that sufficient justification is given in the proposal. For this AO, RADARSAT-2 data and processing will be provided by the CSA under the SOAR Program.

The CSA will lend processed RADARSAT-2 products in GeoTIFF format, via a dedicated FTP site. The data will be programmed and delivered through regular planning and processing services. Data will be delivered in Single Look Complex (SLC) or geo-referenced (Path Image) format.

Prior to having access to the RADARSAT-2 data, successful applicants must sign a RADARSAT-2 Loan Agreement concerning the lending of data for research purposes, and agree to abide by an End User Licence Agreement (EULA), which details the ownership of the data and the use limitations.

The applicant is required to read the RADARSAT-2 Loan Agreement and the EULA presented in Appendix B and to abide by the conditions stipulated therein.

4. Applications

4.1 Required Documentation

Supporting material required will include, but not be limited to, a detailed description of the project; funding requested under the Program; an implementation schedule; an itemized, balanced budget for the project, indicating projected expenditures per year; and confirmed and potential budget and other sources of funds.

The Application must include the following:

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

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

Steve Iris
Office 3A-340
Canadian Space Agency
6767 Route de l'Aéroport
Saint-Hubert, Quebec J3Y 8Y9

Applicants must also take note of the following:

4.2 Proposal Format and Content

The proposal should be written in a clear and concise manner, preferably using 12-point letter size (except for tables and figures) in a Times New Roman font (maximum of 30 pages, excluding appendices). The proposal must include the following sections:

Project Description, including:

4.3 Service Standards – Complete Applications

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

The CSA has set service standards for delays in processing requests, acknowledgements of receipt, funding decisions and payment procedures.

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 12 weeks of receiving a completed application package or closing date of the AO and to send a grant/contribution agreement for signature within 4 weeks of formal approval of the proposal.

Payment: Grant: The CSA's goal is to issue payments within 4 weeks of the successful fulfillment of requirements outlined in the grant 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 AO.

5. Evaluation

5.1 Eligibility Criteria

An eligible proposal will be one that:

5.2 Evaluation Criteria

Applications will be evaluated as set out below. An evaluation committee, composed of EO experts, will assess screened-in applications according to the following criteria: benefits to Canada, results, feasibility, resources, risks and mitigation measures.

Benefits to Canada
Results
Feasibility
Resources
Risks and mitigation measures

Detailed benchmark statements for each sub-criteria and the rating scale are presented in Appendix C.

5.3 Evaluation Process

The CSA will conduct a preliminary screening of the proposals received to ensure that they comply with the eligibility criteria (Section 3), funding restrictions (Section 6) and application requirements (Section 4). Applicants must fill out Section 4 of the Application Form (Pre-screening Criteria). Only applications that have passed the pre-screening process will be given further consideration.

Once the pre-screening process is completed, evaluators will assess the screened applications based on the evaluation criteria listed in section 5.2 and described in Appendix C. Evaluators will be experts in the field relevant to the applications and may include representatives of Canada, other government and non-government agencies and organizations. If applicable, a cross-discipline evaluation committee will be formed when applications from several different disciplines are competing to provide a uniform final score and ranking of proposals.

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 and organizations.

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

Note that MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. – Geospatial Services International (MDA-GSI), which operates and owns the RADARSAT-2 satellite, has a right to view the proposals and the projects that are supported in order to ensure that they are not of a commercial nature and that they are compliant with legislation governing the use of remote sensing data in Canada. All information received will be treated in confidence.

Explanation of scoring scheme: There are five main criteria, each made up of one or more sub-criteria. Each sub-criterion will be rated according to the scoring scheme indicated in the table entitled Evaluation Criteria and Associated Ratings on the next pages. A proposal must achieve a minimum overall score of 60% to be considered for a funding arrangement. It is important to note that if a criterion is not specifically addressed or missing in the proposal, a score of zero will be assigned to that criterion.

Proposals scoring greater than 60% will be ranked in order of their overall scores and, starting with the highest ranked, funding arrangements will be put in place to use up the available funds. In the event that more than one proposal scoring more than 60% is received from the same institution, the one with the lower score will only be funded if there are sufficient funds left after the next ranked proposals from different universities are funded. This is to ensure that the available funds are distributed as widely as possible.

For example: If 10 proposals are received from 6 universities with scores as shown below, the initial and final ranking will be as indicated.

Originating University Score Initial Ranking Final Ranking
University A 90% 1 1
University B 87% 2 2
University C 85% 3 3
University D 82% 4 4
University A 80% 5 7
University E 77% 6 5
University F 75% 7 6
University F 70% 8 8
University E 65% 9 9
University E 60% 10 10
Evaluation criteria associated ratings
Criteria Overall maximum points for corresponding criterion
(a*b)
Maximum points for evaluation
(a)
Weighting factors
(b)
Benchmark definition corresponding to point rating
(0 to 8 points)
No Response Level A Level B Level C Level D
1. Benefits (Wtg: 15%)
1.1 Benefits to Canada 30 8 3.75 0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8
1.2 Contribution to CSA Priorities 35 8 4.38 0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8
1.3 Advancement of G&C Objectives 35 8 4.38 0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8
Sub-total 100              
Weighted Sub-total 15              
2. Results (Wtg: 30%)
2.1 Advancement of new EO knowledge and technologies 40 8 5.00 0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8
2.2 HQP Supported 40 8 5.00 0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8
2.3 Involvement of Canadian academic, industrial or end-user partners 20 8 2.50 0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8
Sub-total 100              
Weighted Sub-total 30              
3. Feasibility (Wtg: 30%)
3.1 Objectives and Application 35 8 4.38 0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8
3.2 Quality of the training and mentoring environment 30 8 3.75 0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8
3.3 Methodology 35 8 4.38 0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8
Sub-total 100              
Weighted Sub-total 30              
4. Resources (Wtg: 15%)
4.1 Relevant Capabilities and Experience of the Project Team 35 8 4.38 0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8
4.2 Management Plan 30 8 3.75 0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8
4.3 Funding Sources 35 8 4.38 0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8
Sub-total 100              
Weighted Sub-total 15              
5. Risk (Wtg: 10%)
Sub-total 100 8 12.50 0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8
Weighted Sub-total 10              
Total weighted points 100              
Pass Mark 60              

6. Funding

6.1 Available Funding and Duration

The total grant for each project will be less than or equal to $200,000. The proposed project schedule must be less than 2 years. During the last year of the project, the CSA may consider amending the grant for a period to be determined upon the following condition: recipients send a notice to the CSA requesting an extension no later than six months before term accompanied by proper justification as may be determined by the CSA. Grant agreements may be amended following a careful review of progress reports, a proposal for project continuation, and a risk analysis that takes the new requested termination date into account. The grant agreement could then be amended under the same terms and conditions as those set out in the original grant agreement, but there would be no additional grant of funding from 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 sole discretion.

Approved proposals will be eligible for total government (federal, provincial/territorial and municipal) assistance of up to 100% of total project costs.

It is expected that projects will also be funded from other sources and that the funds received under this Program will be used to fund items not eligible under other programs. Recipients are required to identify all sources of funding in their application and to confirm that 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.

6.2 Eligible Costs

Eligible costs are direct expenses associated with the delivery of the approved project. The costs are expected to help achieve the results related to the project. Expenses will be covered subject to the applicant signing a funding agreement, in the form of a grant, with the CSA.

Costs will include one or a combination of the following:

7. Funding Agreement

7.1 Payments

The CSA and each successful applicant (the recipient) will sign a funding agreement, which is a condition for any payment made by the CSA with respect to the approved project. 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 recipient's obligation to confirm—once a year in the case of multi-year agreements—their eligibility to this G&C Program – Research Component and inform the CSA in writing of any changes to the conditions used in determining their entitlement to and eligibility for 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 Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service respectively.

7.3 Intellectual Property

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

7.4 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, R.S.Q., Chapter M-30 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Under Sections 3.11 and 3.12 of the Act, municipal bodies, school bodies and public agencies must obtain authorization from 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.

Quebec applicants must complete, sign and include the M-30 Supporting Documentation Form with their application.

7.5 Performance Measurement

The CSA will ask the recipients to report on their project's performance. This may include, but is not limited to, the following:

Knowledge

Capacity

Collaboration

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.

7.6 Reports

The CSA will ask the recipients to produce an annual interim progress report (automated prescribed format) and two reports at the conclusion of the project:

7.7 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.

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 your personal information, you are 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 Grant and Contribution Program in order to support the 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 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 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.

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

Danielle Bourgie
Coordinator, Access to Information and Privacy
Canadian Space Agency
Telephone: 450-926-4866
Email: danielle.bourgie@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. At any point in the process, applicants are invited to share their comments or suggestions with the CSA regarding the AO, the program or the process. Applicants may use the generic web-based Comments and Suggestions Box available at www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/funding-programs/grants-and-contributions-snapshot.asp#comments.

For any questions related to the AO, applicants may either use the web-based Comments and Suggestions Box or the email address (asc.lecedessetc-thegandccoe.csa@canada.ca). Both methods are anonymous. 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 5:00 p.m. (EDT), October 17, 2014.

Question 1: I would like to know if an investigator can be an applicant or co-applicant on more than one proposal.

Answer 1: The answer is yes, the name of a person may appear as a principal applicant or co-applicant on more than one proposal. However, it should be noted that the proposals will be funded per institution and in the event that more than one proposal scoring more than 60% is received from the same institution, as described in section 5.3, the one with the lower score will only be funded if there are sufficient funds left after the next ranked proposals from different universities are funded. This is to ensure that the available funds are distributed as widely as possible.

Question 2: Could you please clarify the page limit for the proposal? The Announcement of Opportunity AO (section 4.2) states that the page limit is set to 30 pages (excluding appendices), while the Application Form of the AO states a page limit of 20 pages (excluding references, under Detailed Project Description). Which document is correct?

Answer 2: The page limit for the proposal is set to 30 pages as stated in the section 4.2 of the AO not 20 pages as stated in the Application Form of the AO. The Applicant Form will be corrected on the CSA's website.

Question 3: How long should the résumés of team members be? Also, for university faculty members, is the résumés need to be provided in addition to their NSERC Form #100?

Answer 3: As résumés are part of the appendices, there is no page limit. Yes, this information shall be provided in addition to the NSERC Form #100.

Question 4: Do affiliated university research centers, such as those identified on the NSERC website (www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Eligibility-Admissibilite/ListEligibleInstitutions-ListEtablissementsAdmissible_eng.asp) are eligible to submit a proposal?

Answer 4: The answer is no. As described in Section 3.1, this AO is intended for Canadian universities and post-secondary institutions. It excludes non-profit research centers. Only Canadian universities and colleges will be considered as eligible recipients.

10. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Appendix A: Overview of the RADARSAT-2 System

A complete presentation of the RADARSAT-2 system can be found at gs.mdacorporation.com/SatelliteData/Radarsat2/Radarsat2.aspx.

Image du système RADARSAT-2
Overview of RADARSAT-2 Beam Modes Offered Through This AO
  Beam Mode Nominal Swath Width (km) Swath Coverage to Left or Right of Ground Track (km) Approximate Resolution (ground range X azimuth) (m)
RADARSAT-2 Modes with Selective Polarization
Transmit H or V
Receive H and V (Dual-Polarization)
Standard 100 250-750 25 x 28
Wide 150 250-650 25 x 28
Fine (Wide) 50 (170) 400-750 10 x 9
ScanSAR Wide 500 250-750 100 x 100
ScanSAR Narrow 300 250-750 50 x 50
Polarimetry (Quad-Pol)
Transmit H and V on alternate pulses
Receive H and V on every pulse
Standard QP (Wide) 25 (50) 250-600 25 x 28
Fine QP (Wide) 25 (50) 400-600 11 x 9
Selective Single Polarization
Transmit H or V
Receive H or V
Multi-Look Fine (Wide) 50 (90) 400-750 11 x 9
Ultra-Fine (Wide) 20 (50) 400-550 3 x 3
Spotlight 18 x 8 250-800 2 x 1

Appendix B: RADARSAT-2 Loan Agreement and EULA

THIS RADARSAT-2 SOAR-E LOAN AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made effective as of (the "Effective Date")

BETWEEN:

CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY (CSA)
6767 Route de l'Aéroport
Longueuil, Quebec, Canada J3Y 8Y9
(the "Sponsor")

AND:

(the "Licensee")

WHEREAS:

  1. The RADARSAT-2 Science and Operational Applications Research Program ("SOAR Program") is a collaborative program between MDA Geospatial Services Inc. ("MDA GSI"), as the sole distributor of RADARSAT-2 imagery, and the Sponsor, focused on the possibility of exploring and capitalizing on the enhanced capabilities of the RADARSAT-2 satellite;
  2. In September 2008, the Sponsor released an Announcement of Opportunity ("Request for Proposal") entitled a Specific Request for SOAR Proposal SOAR Education (SOAR-E) Initiative as part of the SOAR Program, inviting proposals from researchers from a Canadian university or post-secondary institution who wish to develop and demonstrate techniques where RADARSAT-2, either alone or integrated with other data sources, contributes useful information to develop applications and to promote the use of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) remote sensing among graduate students ("SOAR-E Project");
  3. The Licensee is a duly constituted and functioning Canadian university or post-secondary institution involved in research and development, who submitted a proposal to the Sponsor outlining a non-operational, non-commercial project in response to the Request for Proposal and was selected to participate in the SOAR-E Project; and
  4. The Licensee now wishes to obtain a loan of the Products described in Schedule 1 herein, free of charge, from the Sponsor, in order to participate in the SOAR-E Project, and the Sponsor wishes to grant such loan to the Licensee, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements made in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1. Interpretation

For the purpose of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:

"EULA" means the RADARSAT-2 Single User License Agreement that governs the use of the Products, as attached as Schedule 2 to this Agreement.

"Intellectual Property" means inventions, trade secrets, know-how, technology, patents, patent applications, copyright, copyright registrations and copyright applications, but does not include trademarks, trade-names and other trade identifiers.

"Legislation" means the Government of Canada Data Policy, the Remote Sensing Space Systems Act and the Remote Sensing Space Systems Regulations and/or any other statute, statutory instrument, statutory guidance, treaty, regulation, directive relating to the subject matter of the SOAR Project, as may be amended from time to time.

"Products" means all synthetic aperture radar data received from the RADARSAT-2 satellite, processed to include information such as geo-referencing, radiometric corrections, and multi-looking and delivered on any media as well as accompanying written materials; and as set forth in Schedule 1 to this Agreement.

"Value Added Product" or "VAP" means any products that (a) are processed SLC Data (as defined in the EULA) using interferometric processing techniques, such as interferograms, coherent change detection products or interferometric digital elevation models; or (b) include a material addition of other external information or have undergone significant enhancement, but do not retain any pixels of the original SLC Data, Data Products or Derived Image Products (all such terms having the respective definitions given to them in the EULA). Value Added Products do not contain or retain phase information.

2. Ownership and Intellectual Property Rights

  1. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. ("MDA") or its corporate affiliates, including, without limitation, MDA GSI, own and will continue to own all right, title and interest in and to the Intellectual Property related to and contained within the Products and Derived Image Products (as defined in the EULA). All Products shall be marked with the mandatory copyright and credit statement provided in Section 6.2.
  2. The Licensee will own all rights, title and interest in and to the VAPs and related Intellectual Property resulting from its participation in the SOAR Project and developed by the Licensee in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
  3. Any RADARSAT-2 image used by the Sponsor or the Licensee in presentations, publications or reports must also be marked with the mandatory copyright and credit statement set forth in Section 6.2.

3. Use of Product

The Licensee shall have a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, royalty and/or fee-free right to access and use the Products, in such quantities as determined and approved by the Sponsor in accordance with the terms of the SOAR Project, for purposes strictly limited to the research and development of the Products into VAPs and new applications of the SOAR Project ("Restricted Purpose"). The right to access and use the Products shall be conditional upon the Licensee:

  1. Using the Products, or causing the Products to be used, solely for the Restricted Purpose, which expressly excludes any operational or commercial purposes;
  2. Ensuring strict compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and
  3. Ensuring strict compliance with the terms and conditions of the EULA.

4. Order Procedure

For information on the Product ordering procedure, please contact:

SOAR Coordination Office
Canadian Space Agency
6767 Route de l'Aéroport
Saint-Hubert, Quebec J3Y 8Y9

5. Confidentiality

5.1 Subject to the Access to Information Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1), as modified from time to time, the parties hereto acknowledge that the Products, and any information which is confidential and proprietary information of either party and/or its third party licensees disclosed with respect to the SOAR Project, including all information concerning technical, scientific and business interests not generally available to third parties, is confidential information ("Confidential Information"). Any Confidential Information delivered by the disclosing party to the receiving party pursuant to this Agreement and the SOAR Project shall be used and disclosed solely for the purposes of exercising rights or carrying out obligations under this Agreement and the SOAR Project and shall not be disclosed, copied or furnished to third parties, except to those persons employed or engaged by the receiving party who have a need to know same and aware of the confidential nature of the Products and who have been bound, beforehand, to confidentiality obligations no less restrictive that those set forth under this Agreement, without the prior written consent of the disclosing party; provided that this undertaking shall not apply to (i) information that is now in or hereafter becomes a part of the public domain (other than through a third party's breach of this Agreement); (ii) information that the receiving party can prove became lawfully known to it from a source independent of the disclosing party who is not under an obligation of non-disclosure; (iii) disclosures as required by statute or judicial decree or required pursuant to a valid order of a court or Tribunal or regulatory agency to be disclosed by the receiving Party; (iv) information that was already known as evidenced by competent written proof by the receiving party prior to its disclosure by the disclosing party; and (v) information that is independently developed by the receiving party without reference to the Confidential Information of the disclosing party. The Licensee acknowledges that the Products are valuable and unique assets of the Sponsor and/or its third party licensees and agrees to take appropriate action, by instruction, agreement or otherwise, with any persons or organizations permitted access to the Products, including appropriate security measures to prevent illegal disclosure, all so as to enable the Licensee to satisfy its obligations contained herein.

5.2 If a receiving party intends to publish or otherwise disclose any Confidential Information of the disclosing party in reliance upon Section 5.1(iii), it will take reasonable steps to give the disclosing party sufficient notice to allow the disclosing party to contest such request, requirement or order.

6. Publication

6.1 Requirement to Publish. Subject to Section 5, the Licensee shall:

  1. Publish results of its research and participation in the SOAR Project in technical and/or scientific publications and appropriately acknowledge the SOAR Project, including without limitation by including a description of the contribution and advantages of the Products in terms of their support for applications or VAPs;
  2. Submit periodic progress reports to the Sponsor on key milestones reached, as required by the Sponsor;
  3. Provide the Sponsor and MDA GSI with advance copies of their proposed publications, articles and public communications, prior to publication – so the Sponsor / MDA GSI can ensure that no erroneous or inappropriate comments are contained therein;
  4. Submit the results and methods used by the Licensee during the SOAR Project in a timely manner and upon the Sponsor's request, and grant the Sponsor and MDA GSI the right to use such information for promotional purposes only;
  5. Attend SOAR workshops or symposiums to present such results; and
  6. Keep the Sponsor informed about all research performed and provide copies of published results to the Sponsor in a timely manner.

6.2 Copyright. All Products, irrespective of the form in which they are reproduced, shall be clearly marked with the following mandatory copyright and credit statement:

RADARSAT-2 Data and Products © MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. (year of acquisition) – All Rights Reserved. RADARSAT is an official mark of the Canadian Space Agency.

Any RADARSAT-2 image used in presentations, publications or reports must also be marked with the above mandatory copyright and credit statement.

6.3 Use of Trade-Marks and Official Mark

  1. Nothing contained herein gives either party any ownership in the other party's trade-marks, trade names, or other trade identifiers, whether registered or unregistered ("Marks"), and neither party will use any of the other party's Marks without first obtaining the other party's express written permission in advance and then only in strict accordance with the other party's trade-mark usage guidelines. The Licensee further agrees that it will not register, directly or indirectly, any Marks which are identical or confusingly similar to MDA GSI's or MDA's Marks, or which constitute translations thereof.
  2. The Licensee acknowledges that RADARSAT is an official mark of the Sponsor as a public authority of the Government of Canada (the "Official Mark") and, as such, its use is restricted pursuant to Section 9(1) of the Trade-Marks Act, RSC 1985, c.T-13. The Sponsor hereby grants to the Licensee a limited, revocable sub-license to use the Official Mark, solely during the Term and solely in connection with the Restricted Purpose set forth in Section 3.

7. Term and Termination

Term. This Agreement shall enter into effect on the Effective Date and shall continue thereafter for a period of five (5) years unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

7.1 Termination for Cause. This Agreement will terminate immediately and without any requirement for further notice from the Sponsor (i) if the Licensee fails to or is unwilling to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement or is no longer a participant in the SOAR Project; (ii) if the Licensee becomes insolvent or bankrupt, makes a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors, or makes any filing or application to seek the protection of any insolvency law against its creditors; (iii) if the Licensee passes a resolution for the winding up of its affairs; (iv) upon completion of the SOAR Project; (v) in the event of partial or complete failure of the RADARSAT-2 satellite; (vi) if there is a significant change to government priorities, funding or regulations; or (vii) if the Sponsor terminates all or part of the SOAR Project.

7.2 Termination for Convenience. The Sponsor may, at any time, at its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement upon giving a thirty (30) day written notice to the Licensee without any damages either direct or consequential, indirect, special, punitive or incidental damages or lost profits, whether foreseeable or unforeseeable being payable by the Sponsor in accordance with Article 8.

7.3 Obligations Upon Termination. Upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement, for any reason whatsoever, the Licensee shall:

  1. Subject to following completion of research in Section 6.1, forthwith return the Products to the Sponsor or MDA GSI; destroy all copies of the Products in its possession, including copies of any accompanying written materials, modified copies of the Products, and translations or compilations thereof, if any; purge the Products from any computing system or server; and provide a written statement to the Sponsor certifying that this has been done.

Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, if this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 7.2, the Licensee shall either (i) purchase the Products at their commercial price, or (ii) return and destroy, pursuant to Section 7.4(a), all Products and related documentation to the Sponsor.

8. Limitation of Liability

Under no circumstances will the Sponsor be liable for any damages either direct or consequential, indirect, special, punitive or incidental damages or lost profits, whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, based on the Government of Canada Data Policy or based on claims by the Licensee, their partners and/or end-users (including, but not limited to, claims for loss of Product, interruption in use or availability of Products, stoppage of other work or impairment of other assets), arising out of a breach of express or implied warranty or remedy, breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligence, strict liability in tort or otherwise, regardless of whether a limited remedy is deemed to fail its essential purpose.

The Sponsor does not warrant in any manner whatsoever the suitability of the Product for any specific application. The Sponsor does not warrant that (i) the Products will meet the Licensee's or its partners' or end-users' requirements; (ii) the Product will operate in combinations selected for use by the Licensee or its partners or end-users; or (iii) use of the Products will be uninterrupted. The Sponsor will provide the Products "as-is" without warranty of any kind. All warranties, conditions, representations, indemnities and guarantees with respect to the Products, whether express or implied, arising out of law, custom, prior oral or written statements by the Sponsor or otherwise (including, but not limited to, any warranty of merchantability, satisfactory quality, fitness for particular purpose and non-infringement) are hereby overridden, excluded and disclaimed.

The Licensee hereby agrees, upon request by Notice from the Sponsor, to defend and at all times to hold the Sponsor, their respective corporate affiliates, directors, officers and employees (collectively, the "Indemnitees") harmless from and against any and all third party claims, including reasonable legal fees and disbursements, against or involving the Indemnitees or to which the Indemnitees may become subject under any legislation, or at common law or under any theory of law, caused by or arising out of or resulting from the Licensee's actions, inactions and obligations hereunder ("Claims"), including without limitation any Claims arising out of the Licensee's failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement and the Legislation. Notwithstanding, the Licensee will have no obligation to indemnify the Indemnitees against any Claim arising out of (A) an allegation that the Products infringe the Intellectual Property of a third party, except to the extent that such infringement arises out of (i) a correction or modification to the Products not made by the Sponsor or (ii) a third party product, alone or in combination with the Products; and (B) the Sponsor's gross negligence or willful misconduct.

9. Governing Law

The laws in force in the Province of Quebec, Canada, govern this Agreement, and the courts of the Province of Quebec, Canada, will have the exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters arising hereunder. The parties expressly exclude the application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods and the implementing legislation thereto.

10. Assignment

The Licensee shall not, without the express written consent of the Sponsor, assign, delegate, sub-license, sell, distribute, pledge or otherwise transfer the Product, this Agreement, or any right or obligation under it to any person or entity, except as expressly provided for under this Agreement.

11. Point of Contact

The contact information for each party is listed below.

Name Telephone Facsimile Email address
Sponsor        
Licensee        

12. Entire Agreement / Precedence

This document, together with the EULA, constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties hereto relating to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes any prior documents. There are no terms, obligations, covenants, representations, statements or conditions, whether oral or written, express or implied, other than those contained herein. No variation or modification of this Agreement or waiver of any of the terms and provisions hereof will be deemed valid unless it is in writing and signed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between the terms of the EULA and the terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement will govern.

13. Survival

Sections 2, 5 and 7.4 and 8 will survive any termination or expiry of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement effective as of the Effective Date.

Signed for and on behalf of the Sponsor
By (signature):
Name:
Title:
Date:

Signed for and on behalf of the Licensee
By (signature):
Name:
Title:
Date:

IMPORTANT: The Licensee must initial ALL pages (bottom right corner) to confirm that they have been read.

SCHEDULE 1 - LIST OF RADARSAT-2 PRODUCTS

IMPORTANT : SOAR RADARSAT-2 acquisitions are planned with a lower priority than commercial and operational requests. If a re-plan OR a more favorable priority is requested, only the Sponsor can approve and submit the request to the CSA RADARSAT Order Desk. All communication to the RADARSAT-2 Order Desk must be done through the SOAR Coordination Office. Products are provided on a reasonably best effort basis with no guarantee of delivery/availability.

The following Products shall be provided to the Licensee under the terms of this Agreement:

Quantity: The proposal is accepted for a maximum loan of TBD RADARSAT-2 Products.
Images requested:
End date for data acquisition:
Geographic area of interest:

Data may be shared with:
Email
Name
Surname
Position
Organization
Organization Type
Address
City
Postal Code / Zip Code
Country
Province, territory, state or county
Phone number

Email
Name
Surname
Position
Organization
Organization Type
Address
City
Postal Code / Zip Code
Country
Province, territory, state or county
Phone number

SCHEDULE 2 – RADARSAT-2 Single User License Agreement

The RADARSAT-2 Single User License Agreement ("EULA") is attached behind this page and is subject to change. A current EULA is available on the Internet at gs.mdacorporation.com/products/sensor/radarsat2/RS2_Single_User_License_agreement.pdf and may be amended by MDA GSI from time to time, setting forth the terms and conditions which must be complied with by the Licensee for the use of Products.

Appendix C: Evaluation Criteria

1. Benefits to Canada

Weight: 15%

1.1 Enhancement of Canada's World-class Expertise/Leadership

Description: This criterion evaluates how the research will advance Canada's S&T Strategy and enhance Canada's world-class expertise/leadership in the development of new applications and/or techniques/methodologies derived from SAR data.

Excellent: The proposal gives an excellent description of the proposed research and the expected outcomes. Legacy technologies, if applicable, are explained. The proposed research is distinguished by concepts or scientific methods or techniques that are highly innovative or significantly advance the scientific methods or techniques of previous work. Likely results will advance knowledge of how space-based SAR data can be used in practical applications. New techniques/methodologies that will be developed will likely have a significant impact in the long term. The proposal aligns very well with Canada's S&T strategy. (Rating scale: D=7 to 8)

Good: The proposal gives a good description of the proposed research and the expected outcomes. Legacy technologies, if applicable, are indicated. The proposed research includes concepts or scientific methods or techniques that are innovative or advance the scientific methods or techniques of previous work. Likely results will advance knowledge of how space-based SAR data can be used in practical applications. New techniques/methodologies that will be developed will likely have some impact in the long term. The proposal aligns well with Canada's S&T strategy. (Rating scale: C=5 to 6)

Average: The proposal gives a general description of the proposed research and the expected outcomes. Work is largely derived from previous work. The proposed research is not especially innovative. However, it could advance knowledge of how space-based SAR data can be used in practical applications. It is unlikely to have any impact in the long term. The proposal aligns reasonably with Canada's S&T strategy. (Rating scale: B=3 to 4)

Poor: The proposal gives a poor description of the proposed research. It is not anticipated that the research will advance knowledge of how space-based SAR data can be used in practical applications. The project lacks innovative concepts and will not contribute to the advancement of new knowledge. The proposal does not align well with Canada's S&T strategy. (Rating scale: A=1 to 2)

1.2 Contribution to the CSA's Priorities

Description: This criterion evaluates how the research will contribute to the CSA's EO priorities of Environment, Resources & Land Use Management, and Security & Foreign Policy.

Excellent: The proposal gives an excellent description of the subject area and clearly shows how it will provide a significant contribution to one or more of the CSA's EO priority areas. (Rating scale: D=7 to 8)

Good: The proposal gives a good description of the subject area and shows how it will provide a good contribution to one or more of the CSA's EO priority areas. (Rating scale: C=5 to 6)

Average: The proposal gives a general description of the subject area and shows how it might provide a moderate contribution to one or more of the CSA's EO priority areas. (Rating scale: B=3 to 4)

Poor: The proposal gives a general description of the subject area, but it is not clear how it will contribute to the CSA's EO priority areas. (Rating scale: A=1 to 2)

1.3 Advancement of the G&C Program Objectives

Description: This criterion evaluates how the proposed research will advance the G&C Program objective to foster the continuing development of a critical mass of researchers and HQP in Canada in areas relevant to the priorities of the CSA.

Excellent: The proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of the knowledge and skills required for the realization of the research objectives. The skills and scientific and/or technical knowledge that will be acquired by each HQP involved in the project are clearly defined, and their long-term relevance is demonstrated. The proposal clearly shows how the professional and technical skills to be acquired by HQP will facilitate their transition to the labour market. (Rating scale: D=7 to 8)

Good: The proposal demonstrates a good understanding of the knowledge and skills required for the realization of the research objectives. The skills and scientific and/or technical knowledge that will be acquired by each HQP involved in the project are defined, and their long-term relevance is apparent. The professional and technical skills to be acquired by HQP will facilitate their transition to the labour market. (Rating scale: C=5 to 6)

Average: Professional skills and scientific and/or technical knowledge that HQP will acquire are more or less defined, but it is not clear who will acquire what knowledge and skills and for what purposes. The long-term relevance of the knowledge and professional skills that will be acquired is weakly supported. The professional and technical skills to be acquired by HQP are likely to facilitate their transition to the labour market. (Rating scale: B=3 to 4)

Poor: Professional skills and scientific and/or technical knowledge that HQP will acquire throughout the project are not relevant to the long-term needs of SAR application development. It is not clear how the professional and technical skills to be acquired by HQP will facilitate their transition to the labour market. (Rating scale: A=1 to 2)

2. Results

Weight: 30%

2.1 Advancement of New EO Knowledge and Technology

Description: This criterion evaluates the originality of the research, its impact and its potential to advance, directly or indirectly, our knowledge in the field of SAR applications and/or SAR data processing.

Excellent: The proposal clearly describes how the proposed research will advance the capabilities and know-how of Canada's academia sector in the use and application of EO data. The knowledge area(s) is well defined. Likely results will make a significant contribution to the development of innovative applications derived from the new RADARSAT-2 modes and/or to the development of algorithms, methods and information products based on the new modes. (Rating scale: D=7 to 8)

Good: The proposal provides a general description of how the proposed research will advance the capabilities and know-how of Canada's academia sector in the use and application of EO data. The knowledge area(s) is defined. Likely results will make a good contribution to the development of applications derived from the new RADARSAT-2 modes and/or to the development of algorithms, methods and information products based on the new modes. (Rating scale: C=5 to 6)

Average: The proposal provides a general description of how the proposed research will advance the capabilities and know-how of Canada's academia sector in the use and application of EO data. The knowledge area(s) is defined. It is not clear how the results will contribute to the development of applications derived from the new RADARSAT-2 modes and/or to the development of algorithms, methods and information products based on the new modes. (Rating scale: B=3 to 4)

Poor: The proposal provides a weak description of how the proposed research will advance the capabilities and know-how of Canada's academia sector in the use and application of EO data. The knowledge area(s) is poorly defined. It is unlikely that the work will make any significant contribution to the development of applications using the new RADARSAT-2 modes or to the development of algorithms, methods and information products based on the new modes. (Rating scale: A=1 to 2)

2.2 HQP Supported

Description: This criterion assesses the degree to which the proposed research will develop HQP in the domain of SAR remote sensing.

Excellent: The proposal clearly shows how the proposed research will develop HQP in the domain of SAR remote sensing. Work is assigned with excellent supervision and mentoring. Three or more researchers besides the Principal Investigator are proposed. (Rating scale: D=7 to 8)

Good: The proposal shows how the proposed research will develop HQP in the domain of SAR remote sensing. Work is assigned with appropriate supervision and mentoring. Two researchers besides the Principal Investigator are proposed. (Rating scale: C=5 to 6)

Average: The proposal shows in a general way how the proposed research will develop HQP in the domain of SAR remote sensing. Work is assigned with mediocre supervision and mentoring. One researcher besides the Principal Investigator is proposed. (Rating scale: B=3 to 4)

Poor: The proposal does not adequately demonstrate how the proposed research will develop HQP in the domain of SAR remote sensing. It is not clear how high-quality work will be assigned. (Rating scale: A=1 to 2)

2.3 Involvement of Canadian Academic, Industrial or End-user Partners

Description: This criterion assesses how the proposed research will involve partners from other universities, the private sector and/or prospective end-users, and the degree to which the work will lead to real-world applications.

Excellent: The proposal includes collaboration with two or more external organizations, which may be universities, private sector companies or end-user organizations. The roles of each organization are clearly defined. The proposal identifies practical applications that will find widespread use. (Rating scale: D=7 to 8)

Good: The proposal includes collaboration with an external organization, which may be a university, private sector company or end-user organization. The roles of each organization are clearly defined. The proposal identifies practical applications that will find widespread use. (Rating scale: C=5 to 6)

Average: The proposal includes intent to collaborate with an external organization, but the roles of each organization are not clearly defined. The proposal identifies practical applications, but they are not widespread. (Rating scale: B=3 to 4)

Poor: The proposal gives a general idea of potential applications, but they are not widespread. (Rating scale: A=1 to 2)

3. Feasibility

Weight: 30%

3.1 Objectives and Application

Description: This criterion assesses the degree to which the proposal clearly states and describes the specific research objectives of the study. Evaluators will assess the feasibility of achieving the stated objectives.

Excellent: The proposal clearly states and describes specific research objectives of the study that are realistic. A schedule with milestones is included for tracking progress. The proposal discusses the feasibility of attaining success in reaching each objective in the proposed time frame and budget. (Rating scale: D=7 to 8)

Good: The proposal states and describes specific research objectives of the study that appear to be realistic. A schedule with milestones is included for tracking progress. The proposal states that attaining success in reaching each objective in the proposed time frame and budget is feasible. (Rating scale: C=5 to 6)

Average: The proposal states and describes specific research objectives of the study that may not be realistic. A schedule with milestones is included but is not adequate for tracking progress. The proposal does not show the adequacy of the proposed time frame and budget for attaining success in reaching the objectives. (Rating scale: B=3 to 4)

Poor: The proposal states and describes research objectives of the study that are not realistic. The schedule, if included, is not adequate to properly track progress. Attaining success in reaching each objective in the proposed time frame and budget does not appear likely. (Rating scale: A=1 to 2)

3.2 Quality of the Training and Mentoring Environment

Description: This criterion assesses the quality of the training and mentoring environment. It assesses the quality of the participation of supervisors and mentors in the training and mentoring of HQP.

Excellent: The role and responsibilities of supervisors and mentors for HQP are well described, and their level of participation in the training of HQP is excellent. The training and mentoring environment will clearly contribute to producing the expected benefits. Proven and permanent mechanisms of communication, learning and sharing information are in place between the principal investigator, co-investigators, mentors, members of the team and HQP. The proposal clearly indicates how supervisors and mentors help HQP improve their technical, scientific, professional and communication skills as well as build confidence. The proposal details how HQP will take part in the decision-making process related to the project. Feedback mechanisms are formalized. HQP will participate in specific conferences and/or workshops in order to present the results of their work. (Rating scale: D=7 to 8)

Good: The role and responsibilities of supervisors and mentors for HQP is adequately described, and their level of participation in the training of HQP activities is good. The training and mentoring environment will likely contribute to producing the expected benefits. Communication, learning and information-sharing mechanisms between the principal investigator, co-investigators, mentors, members of the team and HQP are well described and correspond to the objectives. Details of the participation of HQP in the decision-making process of the project are provided. Feedback mechanisms are ad hoc. HQP may participate in unspecified conferences and workshops in order to present the results of their work. (Rating scale: C=5 to 6)

Average: The role and responsibilities of supervisors and mentors for HQP is adequately described, and their level of participation in the training of HQP activities is good. The training and mentoring environment will likely contribute to producing the expected benefits. Some communication mechanisms, learning and information-sharing between the principal investigator, co-investigators, mentors, members of the team and HQP are defined in the proposal. However, the proposal contains few details about how HQP will participate in the decision-making process in connection with the project. There are feedback mechanisms, but they are not well defined. Details on the participation of HQP in conferences and workshops for the presentation of the results of their work are vague. (Rating scale: B=3 to 4)

Poor: The proposal provides very little information on the contribution of supervisors and/or mentors and their level of participation in the training of HQP. There is no clear mechanism for HQP to take part in the decision-making process, share results and ideas, and get appropriate feedback from mentors and supervisors. There are no plans for HQP to present the results of their work at conferences or workshops. (Rating scale: A=1 to 2)

3.3 Methodology

Description: This criterion assesses the proposed methodology that will be used for the research activities in order to meet the intended objectives. The evaluators will be looking for a sound and methodical approach to conducting the work and achieving the objectives.

Excellent: The proposed methodology for the research activities shows a sound and methodical approach to conducting the work and achieving the objectives. An overview of the technical flow, steps and tasks is included. The location of the study site(s) is identified. An excellent data plan is included. Equipment and facilities required to support the methodology, along with their availability, are clearly identified. (Rating scale: D=7 to 8)

Good: The proposed methodology for the research activities shows a good approach to conducting the work and achieving the objectives. An overview of the technical flow, steps and tasks is included. The location of the study site(s) is identified. A good data plan is included. Equipment and facilities required to support the methodology, along with their availability, are identified. (Rating scale: C=5 to 6)

Average: The proposed methodology for the research activities shows an adequate approach to conducting the work and achieving the objectives. An overview of the technical flow, steps and tasks is included. The location of the study site(s) is identified. An adequate data plan is included. The equipment and facilities required to support the methodology are identified, but their availability is not clear. (Rating scale: B=3 to 4)

Poor: The proposed methodology for the research activities is not well described or is not appropriate. The technical flow, steps and tasks are not properly shown. It is not clear what equipment and facilities are required to support the methodology. No data plan is included. (Rating scale: A=1 to 2)

4. Resources

Weight: 15%

4.1 Relevant Capabilities and Experience of the Project Team

Description: This criterion evaluates the proposed project team, their individual expertise and their roles in the achievement of the objectives of the project and the AO. The evaluators will be looking for evidence that the principal investigator and his/her team have the interest and ability to transform SAR data into useful information products.

The principal investigator for the project will be the point of contact between the Parties.

Excellent: The proposal makes it clear that the principal investigator and his/her team have the interest and ability to transform SAR data into useful information products. The members of the Project team, including external partners, are clearly presented along with a description of their areas of technical capabilities and experience. Résumés are included. The individual roles on the project are clearly defined. The Project team's experience is showcased in summaries of three (3) relevant projects. (Rating scale: D=7 to 8)

Good: The proposal indicates that the principal investigator and his/her team have the interest and ability to transform SAR data into useful information products. The members of the Project team, including external partners, are presented along with a description of their areas of technical capabilities and experience. Résumés are included. The individual roles on the project are defined. The Project team's experience is showcased in summaries of two (2) relevant projects. (Rating scale: C=5 to 6)

Average: The proposal claims that the principal investigator and his/her team have the interest and ability to transform SAR data into useful information products, but that claim is not substantiated. The members of the Project team, including external partners, are presented along with a description of their areas of technical capabilities and experience. Résumés are included. The individual roles on the project are not clearly defined. The Project team's experience is showcased in a summary of one (1) relevant project. (Rating scale: B=3 to 4)

Poor: It is not clear that the principal investigator and his/her team have the interest and ability to transform SAR data into useful information products. The individual roles on the project are not clearly defined. The Project team's experience is not properly showcased. (Rating scale: A=1 to 2)

4.2 Management Plan

Description: This criterion evaluates the organization of the work described in the technical proposal. Evaluators will assess the management plan for its completeness and its effectiveness in achieving the project objectives.

Excellent: The proposal includes an excellent management plan. The named project manager has experience in overseeing projects of a similar nature. The organization of the team is shown with roles of team members. A thorough WBS is included. A comprehensive schedule is included. A RAM is included that shows the level of effort for each team member. (Rating scale: D=7 to 8)

Good: The proposal includes a good management plan. The named project manager has some experience in overseeing projects of a similar nature. The organization of the team is shown with roles of team members. A WBS is included. A schedule is included. A RAM is included that shows the level of effort for each team member. (Rating scale: C=5 to 6)

Average: The proposal includes an adequate management plan. The named project manager has limited experience in overseeing projects. The organization of the team is shown, but the roles of team members are not clear. A basic WBS is included. A schedule is included. A RAM is included but there are gaps. (Rating scale: B=3 to 4)

Poor: The management plan is poor or non-existent. The named project manager has little or no experience in overseeing projects. The organization of the team and the roles of team members are not clear. A proper WBS is not included. The schedule is not in sufficient detail or is non-existent. A RAM is either not included or does not adequately show the level of effort for each team member. (Rating scale: A=1 to 2)

4.3 Funding Sources

Description: Projects of this nature typically require special equipment, software, ancillary data, base maps, etc. In addition, field work may be needed. These items can be expensive and may not be covered by other funding sources. They are candidates for funding under this AO, along with all the items listed in Section 6.2. This criterion assesses the sufficiency of the overall project funding.

Excellent: The proposal clearly shows the total funding required for the proposed research. Other sources of funding are clearly shown with the funding contributed by each. The amount being requested is clearly stated as well as the areas to which it will be applied. There is no shortfall. (Rating scale: D=7 to 8)

Good: The proposal indicates the total funding required for the proposed research. Other sources of funding are indicated, but the amount contributed by each is not shown. The amount being requested is clearly stated as well as the areas to which it will be applied. There does not appear to be a shortfall. (Rating scale: C=5 to 6)

Average: The proposal indicates the total funding required for the proposed research. Other sources of funding are indicated, but the amount contributed by each is not shown. The amount being requested is stated. There appears to be a shortfall. (Rating scale: B=3 to 4)

Poor: The proposal indicates the total funding required for the proposed research. The proposal is vague about other sources of funding. The amount being requested is stated. There is a shortfall. (Rating scale: A=1 to 2)

5. Risks and Mitigation Measures

Weight: 10%

5.1

Description: This criterion evaluates key risks associated with the project and the mitigation strategies for each of the technical, management and programmatic risks.

Excellent: The proposal clearly states the risks to the successful completion of the work within the stated time frame and budget. It proposes solid mitigation measures to be used should any of the risks be realized. (Rating scale: D=7 to 8)

Good: The proposal states the risks to the successful completion of the work within the stated time frame and budget. Mitigation measures are proposed but are weak. (Rating scale: C=5 to 6)

Average: The proposal gives an indication of the risks to the successful completion of the work within the stated time frame and budget. Mitigation measures are inadequate. (Rating scale: B=3 to 4)

Poor: The proposal does not clearly state the risks to the successful completion of the work within the stated time frame and budget. Mitigation measures are inadequate or non-existent. (Rating scale: A=1 to 2)

Date modified: