Language selection

Search

Top of page

Planetary and Astronomy Missions Co-Investigator -

Announcement of Opportunity

Publication date:

Application deadline:

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)

Summary of key information

  • Eligible recipients: Canadian universities and post-secondary institutions
  • Grants or contributions: Grants
  • Maximum amount per project: $100,000
  • Maximum timeframe of the project: Two (2) years, with possibility of extension of one (1) to two (2) years subject to funding availability
  • Estimated project start date:

1. Introduction

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

A Co-I is a member of the mission team who is critical for the conduct of the mission by contributing unique expertise and/or capabilities needed for its successful completion. A Co-I must have a well-defined role in the mission investigation, science team, or consortium, and serve under the direction of a mission or instrument Principal Investigator (PI). For the purposes of this Announcement of Opportunity (AO), it is understood that eligible astronomy missions may not use the term "Co-I", but the term will be used throughout.

Typical mission Co-I responsibilities may include a role in instrument calibration, data product generation, science requirements validation, science model development, strategic science planning or science operations planning. In return for their commitment to these roles, Co-Is also participate in science analysis activities within the science team as agreed with the mission / instrument PI and according to mission Rules of the Road that define authorship of mission publications and data sharing.

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

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 to support Co-I activities and investigations related to missions in planetary science and space astronomy.

The key results for CSA expected from selected proposals are

The CSA will strongly prioritize selection of missions that are currently in or will soon enter their primary science operations phases. A similar solicitation is anticipated to be repeated in future years with an updated list of Eligible projects (Section 3.2).

3. Eligibility criteria

3.1 Eligible recipients

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

For the purposes of this AO, the term "Applicant" refers to the Canadian university or post-secondary institution that will submit the application. The term "Co-I" is the individual employed by the Applicant that would conduct the proposed scientific activities.

The Co-I must be an approved member of the mission science team with a formally defined role of an eligible mission (see Section 3.2). For planetary exploration missions, the Co-I must be named specifically in the support letter as a Co-I (i.e. not a Collaborator or other title).

For both planetary exploration and space astronomy missions, a letter from the Mission or Instrument PI or from the relevant international Space Agency representative is required as demonstration of the Co-I's status on this science team. The letter must identify the mission and science investigation as appropriate, and include confirmation of status and summary of the role and responsibilities of the Co-I.

Due to the nature of this AO, proposals from teams will not be accepted.

The involvement of graduate students supporting a Co-I in the proposed research activities and science operations is actively encouraged. Students do not need to be named in the letter demonstrating science team membership status, but it is the Co-I's responsibility to ensure that work conducted as a result of this funding complies with relevant mission agreements such as Rules of the Road for data sharing.

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

3.2 Eligible projects

To be eligible for CSA funding, Projects must consist of:

In addition, Projects must satisfy each of the following criteria:

3.2.1 Mission status

The Project must be associated with an international planetary exploration or space astronomy mission that has been selected by its lead agency (i.e. is beyond conceptual development) and for which CSA does not have an existing agreement for science team participation.

The following missions are thus ineligible under this AO:

Priority planetary missions for the purpose of this AO are:

Applicants associated with other missions satisfying the eligibility criteria will be considered.

3.2.2 Alignment with Canadian scientific priorities

The Project must have planetary science or space astronomy knowledge objectives that are aligned with CSA Exploration Priorities, Goals and Objectives.

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

Detail on current Canadian planetary science and space astronomy objectives can be found in the document 'Canadian Space Exploration: Science and Space Health Priorities for the Next Decade'.

3.2.3 Mission science team activities

The Project must comply with the definition below.

For the purposes of this AO, Projects are defined as a scientific investigation using mission data:

  1. for which a formal mission role is necessary to influence instrument development or science operations planning and decision making, and;
  2. through which an advance in scientific knowledge can be expected through the production of peer-reviewed scientific publications.

The investigation may be based on data analysis, laboratory experiments and instruments, theory, modelling, simulation, and/or analogue activities and field instruments. In addition, financial support may be included for relevant mission activities, including but not limited to, the following:

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

All development phases necessary for a project are eligible. Any logical breakdown or combination of these phases can constitute a funded project. However, breaking down a project into numerous phases to obtain more than the maximum grant or contribution is not allowed. Furthermore, even if the maximum funding for one project is not reached, the completion of a funded phase does not automatically guarantee funding of the remaining phases.

For a list of eligible costs, see Section 6.2.

3.3 Links to CSA priorities

To be eligible, projects supported under this AO must contribute to investigations addressing the following CSA planetary exploration and space astronomy science objective:

3.4 Links to G&C Program objectives

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

3.5 R&D definition

Basic R&D is defined as: "Any pre-commercial science and technology activities that are carried out to resolve unknowns regarding the feasibility of (i) space concepts or (ii) applications in the space sector."

Basic R&D activities supported under this AO shall be undertaken in Canada unless it is essential to the success of the project.

4. Applications

4.1 Required documentation

Applicants must submit a completed Application as described below.

The Application must include the following:

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

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:

Planetary and Astronomy Missions Co-Investigator -: Announcement of Opportunity
Space Exploration Development
Canadian Space Agency
6767 Route de l'Aéroport
Saint-Hubert, Quebec J3Y 8Y9

The questions and answers related to this AO will be posted on the CSA website in the "Frequently Asked Questions" of this AO (see Section 9). CSA will respond to questions received before 5:00 p.m. (ET) .

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 proposals within two (2) weeks of receiving the completed application package.

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

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

The Applicant should plan for a nominal award start on or soon after .

5. Evaluation

5.1 Eligibility criteria

Applications must satisfy the following eligibility criteria:

5.2 Evaluation criteria

The evaluation committee will evaluate eligible applications according to the following criteria. These are further described in Appendix A.

Criteria Description A B C D Minimum score
Benefits to Canada Relevance of research investigation and Co-I role to mission objectives 15 10 5 0 20 points
Advancement of knowledge relevant to the CSA Exploration Program. 15 10 5 0
Results Publication and science dissemination plan 10 7 3 0 20 points
Enhancement of pool of space experts 10 7 3 0
Timeline of anticipated results 15 10 5 0
Resources Budget and other funding sources 10 7 3 0 3 points
Feasibility Feasibility of the research methodology 10 7 3 0 13 points
Research plan and schedule 10 7 3 0
Risk and mitigation strategies Project risks (financial, managerial, scientific and/or technical) and mitigation strategies 5 3 2 0 2 points

The minimum overall score required to be considered for funding is 60 points.

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 fields relevant to the applications and may include representatives of Canada and other countries, and representatives of other government and non-government agencies and organizations. If applicable, a multidisciplinary evaluation committee will be formed when applications from several different disciplines are competing in order to provide a uniform final score and ranking of proposals.

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.

6. Funding

6.1 Available funding and project duration

The total maximum funding amount given in the form of a grant for each project will be $100,000 in Canadian dollars over a maximum period of two years.

The number of projects under this AO will depend on funding availability. Subject to available funding, it is anticipated that the projects could be extended for an additional one (1) to two (2) years. However, submitted proposals should plan to be completed within two (2) years.

An Applicant may be funded for more than one (1) Project under this AO provided each Project has a different Co-I. The CSA would only support one (1) Project for a given Co-I.

The CSA reserves the right to reject any proposals or reduce the amount of the grants at its entire discretion.

Approved proposals will be eligible for a total amount of government assistance (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal) of up to 100% of total project costs in the case of other eligible recipients.

To determine the amount of funding to be allocated, consideration will be given to the availability of CSA funds, the total cost of the project, and the other confirmed sources of funds provided by other stakeholders and the Applicant.

Applicants must identify all sources of funding in their applications and confirm this 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.

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 grant, with the CSA.

Eligible costs for grants under this AO are the following:

  1. Laboratory or field instrumentation (including computers) is an eligible cost under the category equipment purchase or rental.
  2. Up to $5000 over the term of the grant may be used for travel to Canada of an international collaborator for the purpose of the proposed work.

7. Funding agreements

7.1 Payments

The CSA and 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.

For grant agreements, payments will be made in a lump sum or 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 for the G&C Program – Research Component and inform the CSA in writing of any changes to the conditions used in determining their eligibility for this component.

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.

7.4 Intellectual property

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

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

7.5 Organizations in Quebec

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

Under Sections 3.11 and 3.12 of this Act, certain entities/organizations, as defined in the meaning of the Act, such as municipal bodies, school bodies, or public agencies, must obtain authorization from the Secrétariat du Québec aux affaires canadiennes (SQRC), 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.

7.6 Performance measurement

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

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 Grant and Contribution Program to Support Research, Awareness and Learning in Space Science and Technology – Research Component, and will be used for the evaluation and selection of proposals. Personal information (such as contact information 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, 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 5 p.m. (ET), .

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: The Announcement of Opportunity states that "proposals from teams will not be accepted". However, the proposal form asks for team members to be listed. Please clarify.

Answer 1: The AO intent is such that: a proposal from a team (consortium) comprising multiple faculty members will not be accepted unless each faculty member is endorsed by name in the letter demonstrating official affiliation with the mission / instrument. Research teams led by single faculty member with supporting students or post-doctoral fellows will also be accepted.

Question 2: Is there a specific format in which the CVs must be prepared?

Answer 2: CVs for team members may be submitted in the format of their choice.

Question 3: Must the researcher already be officially listed as a mission Co-I at the time of submission of the proposal or can the status as Co-I be made contingent on receiving CSA funds?

Answer 3: The researcher's official status on the mission can be contingent on the receipt of CSA funds provided that the commitment to that status is clearly expressed in the support letter provided by the mission's or its Agency's official.

Question 4: Please clarify the eligibility of missions. If the researcher is listed as a Co-I on a payload proposal under review with a foreign space agency for a mission that is expected to be confirmed and launched within 2 years, would the applicant's proposal be eligible under this AO?

Answer 4: To be eligible, the mission must already have been selected by the lead agency for development. Missions still in the concept / proposal stage are ineligible.

Question 5: Are Co-I support letters from the Instrument PI from a previous calendar year(s) adequate? Do they need to be updated to ?

Answer 5: Support letters from instrument or mission Co-Is should demonstrate that the Co-I (or equivalent) status is current and thus applicable to the present AO.

Question 6: Besides the PI, is a 1-page CV acceptable for all Team Members?

Answer 6: There is no specific length requirement for the CV. The CVs should be capable of demonstrating that the person has sufficient expertise to adequately perform his or her role on the project.

Question 7: Should PDFs and students be included in Section 6, or in Section 7 only? If Section 6, are CVs required from each of them?

Answer 7: All team members that will actively contribute to the proposed project should be listed in Section 6. CVs should be provided for all team members in Section 6.

Question 8: It is stated in Section 7.6 of the AO: "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." However, no details on what form or where these copies should be delivered to are provided or whom to inform in the event of a pending press release resulting from the work.

Answer 8: Information regarding publications and communications efforts will be provided to successful applicants in the grant agreement documentation.

Question 9: Is a PI or Co-I of a guest observer program, but who is not officially a Co-I on the mission, eligible for funding under this AO?

Answer 9: No, guest observer status is not sufficient. As defined in Section 3.1 of the AO, the Co-I must be an approved member of an eligible mission's science team with a formally defined role.

Question 10: Can a researcher who is a member of a consortium for an ESA mission qualify for this AO and if so how?

Answer 10: To be eligible, a researcher must be endorsed by name in a letter demonstrating official affiliation with the mission / instrument by the consortium Lead or PI. See also question 1.

Appendix A: Evaluation criteria definition, scale rating, and scores

Scoring and weights

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

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

1. Benefits to Canada

Scoring:

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

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

Poor. The proposed research objectives are weakly related to the associated mission objectives and/or are weakly-defined so that likely advances are difficult to assess, and/or do not require membership Co-I role to advance. (Score: D = 0)

Average. The proposed research objectives are reasonably well defined and are related to one or more of the associated mission objectives. Planned results would advance knowledge relevant to the mission objective(s). There is a clear relationship between the Co-I role and responsibilities and proposed research investigation. (Score: C = 5)

Good. The proposed research objectives are well-defined, with a clear relationship to one or more of the associated mission objectives, and are in line with the Co-I's role and responsibilities which are important to the mission. Planned results would advance knowledge relevant to the central theme(s) of the approved mission objective(s). (Score: B = 10)

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

1.2 Advancement of knowledge relevant to the CSA Exploration Program

This criterion evaluates the originality of the research and its potential to advance CSA Space Exploration goals as listed in the AO, and community objectives as described in the document "Canadian Space Exploration: Science and Space Health Priorities for the next Decade".

Poor. The research does not address CSA Space Exploration goals and community objectives and/or is a reapplication of previous work. The project lacks novel concepts and will not contribute to advancement of new knowledge. (Score: D = 0)

Average. The research addresses CSA Space Exploration goals and community objectives in a general way and could advance knowledge in the field of planetary exploration. (Score: C = 5)

Good. The probable results are likely to advance knowledge central to CSA Space Exploration goals and community objectives. The proposed research involves novel or original concepts or methods, and/or builds on previous work. (Score: B = 10)

Excellent. The probable results are likely to advance knowledge about central to CSA Space Exploration goals and community objectives. The proposal is distinguished by highly novel or original scientific or technical concepts or methods, and/or builds significantly on previous work. (Score: A = 15)

2. Results

Scoring:

2.1 Publication and science dissemination plan

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

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

Average. The proposal includes one or more scientific publications and conference presentations and these appear feasible. (Score: C = 3)

Good. The proposal includes publications and conference presentations with one or more targeted at launch and first results special issues, and demonstrates a strong commitment to science dissemination. Publications and presentations appear feasible and are likely to raise Canada's profile in the research field. (Score: B = 7)

Excellent. The proposal includes a well-thought out and structured scientific publications and dissemination plan that includes publications targeted at launch and first results special issues and demonstrates a strong commitment to science dissemination. HQP are encouraged as authors, thus advancing the careers of the next generation. The scientific publication and dissemination plan appears feasible and is likely to raise Canada's profile in the broader research field, considerably. Data products produced as a result of this work (where relevant) will be delivered to a public database in a timely manner. (Score: A = 10)

2.2 Enhancement of pool of space experts

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

Poor. The Applicant has limited or no experience in the scientific methods and technical approaches needed to complete the proposed work, and the acquisition of new needed expertise during the course of the project is doubtful. (Score: D = 0)

Average. The Applicant has demonstrated experience in most of the scientific methods and technical approaches needed to complete the proposed work, and the acquisition of new needed expertise is credible and will broaden his or her expertise. (Score: C = 3)

Good. The Applicant has demonstrated experience in most of the scientific methods and technical approaches needed to complete the proposed work, and the acquisition of new needed expertise is credible and will broaden his or her expertise. The proposed work is a new collaboration with one or more international Science Team Member(s), or provides responsibilities to one or more junior researcher(s) in the Applicant's group that will allow them to develop new core expertise in the methodologies central to the proposed research and provides them with experience of mission science operations. (Score: B = 7)

Excellent. The Applicant is world-leading in the proposed science methods and technical approaches and the proposed work includes novel applications that will enhance international recognition of the Applicant's group. The proposed work is a new collaboration with one or more international Science Team Members and provides roles and responsibilities to junior researchers in the Applicant's group that allow them to acquire expertise needed to become future leaders in this field, and provides them with experience of mission science operations. (Score: A = 10)

2.3 Timeline of anticipated results

This criterion evaluates the time between grant award and production of high impact science results. It is anticipated that the greatest number and highest profile publications will be produced after operational mission data become available.

Poor. The proposed mission will enter its primary science phase after . (Score: D = 0)

Average. The proposed mission will enter its primary science phase in or . (Score: C = 5)

Good. The proposed mission will enter its primary science phase in or or the proposed mission is currently in its extended science mission. (Score: B = 10)

Excellent. The proposed mission is currently in its primary science phase or will enter its primary science phase in . (Score: A = 15)

3. Resources

Scoring:

Budget completeness and justification

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

Poor. The budget and justification sections of the form are incomplete and inadequate information is presented to make an assessment, or the budget appears highly over-estimated or under-estimated for the proposed work and inadequate justification is provided. (Score: D = 0)

Average. Overall, the budget appears adequate for the proposed work and reasonable justification is provided, but questions remain about some cost items. (Score: C = 3)

Good. The budget appears adequate and reasonable for all elements of the proposed work and is well justified. (Score: B = 7)

Excellent. The budget appears adequate and reasonable for all elements of the proposed work and is well justified. The budget leverages other sources of funding or significant in kind contributions. (Score: A = 10)

4. Feasibility of the project

Scoring:

4.1 Feasibility of the research methodology

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

Poor. The research methodology is poorly defined and/or there is a high likelihood that the research objectives will not be met due to inappropriate methods. (Score: D = 0)

Average. The research methodology is somewhat defined but details are lacking, and/or, better approaches can be found in the literature to achieve the same objectives. There is a reasonable likelihood that the research objectives will be achieved. (Score: C = 3)

Good. The research methodology is well defined. Proposed scientific methods and technical approaches are well-understood and have been applied to similar projects as demonstrated by a literature review. There is a high likelihood that the research objectives will be achieved. (Score: B = 7)

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

4.2 Feasibility of the research plan and schedule

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

Poor. The research plan is poorly defined and/or there is a high likelihood that the objectives will not be met due to inadequate or unavailable resources, and/or the schedule is incomplete and/or highly under- or over-estimated, or strongly dependent on a launch date which may slip. (Score: D = 0)

Average. The workplan is somewhat defined but details are lacking. The work could be completed on schedule and within budget, but some doubts remain concerning the availability of resources, or dependencies on a mission launch date which may slip. (Score: C = 3)

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

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

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

Scoring:

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

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

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

Good. The proposal includes an analysis that identifies few risks due to a well thought out management approach, and a conservative technical approach. The analysis is credible, and reasonable mitigation strategies are presented for the risks identified. (Score: B = 3)

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

Total

Scoring:

Date modified: