Language selection

Search

Top of page

Space Technology Demonstrations for SMEs, Not-for-Profit Organizations and Universities AO

On this page

  1. INTRODUCTION
  2. AO OBJECTIVES
  3. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
  4. APPLICATION
  5. EVALUATION
  6. FUNDING
  7. FUNDING AGREEMENTS
  8. PRIVACY NOTICE STATEMENT
  9. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
  10. Appendix A Point-Rated Evaluation Criteria

Announcement of opportunity (AO)

Publication date:

Application deadline:

1 INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, the Canadian space community has expressed (through forums, conferences, working groups, and more recently through the CSA's Request for Information on Technology Demonstration - Survey on Demonstration Needs and webinar) a high degree of interest to advance research and development (R&D) with demonstrations in space to acquire flight heritage to grow their business or diversify their activities.

This Announcement of Opportunity (AO) is designed specifically to support the Canadian space sector with funds to demonstrate new technologies in space. Such activities allow the space sector to grow the economy and create the jobs of the future. More specifically, this AO will support the adaptation of an engineering or qualification model, or the development of a proto-flight model based on the existing design, its delivery, integration, launch and demonstration.

This AO has two phases to provide participants time and resources to develop their projects. Project Phase 1 is the definition phase, during which participants will define their project plans in all aspects including the choice of a platform and launcher service, as well as all integration activities. Project Phase 2 is the implementation phase leading to a space demonstration.

To help beneficiaries to define their projects, the CSA will offer one or more free public webinar(s) about the various platforms and launcher services. This webinar(s) will be open to the entire Canadian space sector, regardless of whether they apply to this AO or not.

This AO is consistent with the terms and conditions of CSA's Class Grant and Contribution Program to 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 will take precedence.

2 AO OBJECTIVES

This initiative aims to support the space sector's SMEs, Not-for-Profit Organizations and Universities to advance their R&D with demonstrations in space to gain flight heritage and prove new technologies. These activities will enable selected Canadian organizations to further their basic R&D capabilities.

3 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

In this section 3

3.1 Eligible Recipients

Eligible recipients are limited to:

  • Canadian universities;
  • For-profit organizations of less than 500 employees;
  • Not-for-profit organizations;

All must be established and operating in Canada.

Multiple eligible recipients can collaborate on the same project through a partnership, where all partners are all liable in the contribution agreement and are all considered funding recipients.

3.2 Eligible Projects

This AO supports the basic R&D of space technologies. Only technologies targeting a demonstration in space are eligible. Projects seeking demonstration in a suborbital flight platform, e.g. sounding rockets, are ineligible for this AO. Demonstrations through the International Space Station will only be eligible if the access is obtained through commercial service providers.

Projects related to Application development, Earth Observation data, Satellite Telecommunications data, and Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) data are not eligible, as they are or will be supported through other funding opportunities.

Eligible technologies must have reached TRL-6 (System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space)) at the beginning of the project. The design and development of an instrument, payload or platform (e.g. Basic R&D from TRL 1 to TRL 5) is excluded from the eligible scope of projects funded under this AO. However, projects funded under this AO can include the R&D required to adapt an existing instrument or payload, or to develop a protoflight model based on the existing design for its integration on a demonstration platform. Activities such as adaptation of interfaces (electrical and mechanical), volume, mass or power and integration/modification of components to withstand the space environment are also eligible.

Eligible projects are not required to be manifested with a payload delivery service provider to apply for Project Phase 1. However, eligible projects will be required to be manifested with a payload delivery service provider to apply for Project Phase 2.

All development phases necessary for a project are eligible. Any logical breakdown or combination of these phases can constitute a funded project under this AO. However, breaking down a project into numerous phases submitted as distinct proposals to obtain more than the maximum grant or contribution under this AO is not allowed. Furthermore, the completion of a funded phase does not automatically guarantee future funding of the remaining phases.

3.3 Links to CSA Priorities

To be eligible, projects supported under this AO must contribute to CSA's priority of building industrial capabilities, i.e. projects that aim to develop new technologies and/or know-how.

3.4 Links to the Class G&C Program Objectives

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

  1. To support the development of science or technology relevant to the priorities of the Canadian Space Agency;
  2. To foster the continuing development of a critical mass of researchers and highly qualified people (HQP) in Canada in areas relevant to the priorities of the CSA.

3.4.1 Other Considerations

Equity, Diversity and Inclusion

Applicants are strongly encouraged to strive for a balanced representation in the group of HQPs participating in the project. For instance, applicants are encouraged to propose projects that increase the representativeness of the four designated groups (women, Indigenous peoples, members of visible minorities, and persons with disabilities).

Mitacs

Potential applicants may be interested in contacting Mitacs, a national not-for-profit organization. Mitacs builds partnerships that support industrial and social innovation in Canada, and can help companies to access the talent, technologies, and strategic partnerships they need to innovate and grow. Academic researchers and highly skilled graduates or postdoctoral talent can be leveraged on research projects in collaboration with universities. Potential applicants will have to account for the Mitacs funding as part of the total government (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal) assistance in the application form.

3.5 Basic R&D Definition

Eligible projects supported under this AO must comply with the following definition for basic R&D by providing the required justification within section 4 of the Phase 1 Application Form:

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

The following due diligence process will be applied to determine whether projects are compliant with this definition. To that end, justification to be provided in section 5.2 of the Phase 1 proposal form should:

  • Quantify the technical objectives being sought and must describe how the expected results will be measured;
  • Clearly state which technological unknowns are proposed to be answered;
  • Clearly state the working hypotheses behind solving the unknowns and describe how plausible it is anticipated to solve these unknowns;
  • Demonstrate that the proposed project consists of more than routine engineering or current operations; and
  • Substantiate the current Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and the proposed TRL expected to be reached (up to TRL 8).

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

TRL 1 

Basic principles observed and reported

TRL 2 

Technology concept and/or application formulated

TRL 3 

Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept

TRL 4 

Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment

TRL 5 

Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment

TRL 6 

System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space)

TRL 7 

System prototype demonstration in a space environment

TRL 8 

Actual system completed and "flight qualified" through test and demonstration

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

4 APPLICATION

In this section 4

4.1 Application for Phase 1

4.1.1 Required documentation

The application for Project Phase 1 – Definition must include the following:

  • A completed original Phase 1 Application Form (Word, 88 Kb) signed by the duly authorized representative;
  • One copy of the full Proposal including:
    • A description of the project that responds to the evaluation criteria for Phase 1 in Appendix A paragraph 10.1;
    • A detailed and balanced budget for the Project Phase 1, indicating projected expenditures, cash flow requirements as well as confirmed and potential revenues and other sources of funds, in more details than is required in sections 3 and 4 of the Application Form;
    • A high level forecasted budget for the potential Project Phase 2 indicating expenditures;
    • The names, titles and telephone numbers of persons responsible for managing the project; and
    • The résumés of each team member responsible for managing the project and key technical personnel. The résumés should be limited to two pages with only information that is relevant to the application.
  • Proof of incorporation or registration and a copy of the document(s) confirming the legal name of the applicant
  • Letters from other funding contributors confirming their contributions, if applicable;
  • Letters of support, if applicable;
  • The Declaration on Confidentiality, Access to Information Act and Privacy Act form signed by the duly authorized representative (refer to the Applicant Declaration on Confidentiality, Access to Information Act and Privacy Act section included in the application form);
  • For organizations in Quebec, M-30 Supporting Documentation form completed and signed by the duly authorized representative (refer to the M-30 form for organizations in Quebec included in the application form);
  • If the project is executed through a partnership, a completed original Partner Application Form (Word, 74 KB) for each partner, signed by the duly authorized representative of the partner. Partner application forms are to be submitted in paper and in PDF.

The documents must be combined in a single PDF-formatted file, in the same order as presented above with all security features disabled. The application form and supporting documents must be included in the file as a searchable PDF-formatted document (PDF/A-1a is the preferred format). If there are any accessibility issues with the submitted PDF file, all consequences reside with the applicant.

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

The applicant must keep one hard copy of all the original documents above. The CSA may require applicants who successfully passed the evaluation stage described in Section 5 of the AO to send the paper version of their complete application including the original documents.

The applicant is to take note that the company financial statements for the last two years and the most recent interim results will be requested in a later phase of the evaluation process, as a condition to signing a contribution agreement. It is not required to submit financial statements with the application.

4.1.2 Submit the completed application electronically

  • Submit an account creation request using the Electronic Proposal Portal. Please note that Google Chrome is the browser of choice for submissions. Supported browsers are Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge.
  • In the "Proposal title" field of the Electronic Proposal Portal, please use the following formatting standard: SIM TECH DEMO for SMEs and Orgs P1_ Name Of Organization_Short project name (e.g. SIM_TECH DEMO for SMEs and Orgs P1_SpaceCompanyA_OpticalSensorDemonstration).
  • The "Applicant" section should contain the information for the contact person listed in the application form.
  • Within 72 hours, the CSA will send an email confirming the account creation as well as instructions (user guide) on how to access the platform.
  • Using the temporary password assigned by the CSA, login to the secured portal to upload protected documents.
  • Please refer to the user guide for instructions on how to securely upload documents.

Please note:

  • Applicants using the electronic portal are strongly encouraged to create their account no later than , as technical difficulties may arise. If technical issues cannot be resolved, applicants must submit their Proposal by mail.
  • Applicants are strongly encouraged to upload their Proposal well before the submission deadline;
  • Proposals must be submitted (successfully uploaded) by the applicants no later than at 1:00 p.m. (ET).
  • The onus is on the applicant to ensure their Proposal is complete and that all documents are uploaded on the Electronic Proposal Portal within the prescribed deadline;
  • The CSA is not responsible for any delays under any circumstances, and will refuse Proposals that are received after the stipulated deadline;
  • Hand-delivered Proposals will not be accepted;
  • Proposals sent by e-mail will not be accepted;
  • Applicants are asked not to send their Proposals both electronically and by mail or courier service. If multiple applications are submitted, only the latest valid version received will be considered;
  • Incomplete Proposals will not be considered. Proposals will be reviewed in the order of reception.

4.1.3 How to submit Proposals by mail or using a recognized courier service

The applicant is encouraged to submit their Proposals electronically following the instructions provided in Section 4.1.2 of the AO. However, if the applicant is unable to submit their Proposals electronically, please contact pmi-sim@asc-csa.gc.ca no later than at 1:00 p.m. (ET) to obtain instructions on how to submit a paper Proposal by mail or by using a recognized courier service.

Proposals submitted by mail or by using a recognized courier service must be received at the CSA no later than at 1:00 p.m. (ET).

The onus is on the applicant to ensure their paper Proposal is complete and that all documents are received by the CSA within the prescribed deadline. The CSA is not responsible for any delays under any circumstances, and will refuse paper Proposals that are received after the stipulated deadline.

4.2 Application for Phase 2

Upon completion of Phase 1 activities, participants could be invited to submit proposals for Phase 2 through funding offers. Schedule relative to this process will be determined at a later date.

Instructions to apply for Phase 2 will be made available to Phase 1 participants in due time.

4.3 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 2 weeks of receiving the completed application package for both Project Phases 1 and 2.

Decision: The CSA's goal is to respond to the proposal within 11 weeks of the AO's closing date for Project Phase 1, within 8 weeks of the funding offers closing for Project Phase 2.

Agreement: The CSA's goal is to send a contribution agreement for signature within 4 weeks after formal approval of the proposal for both Project Phases 1 and 2.

Payment:

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

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

5 EVALUATION

In this section 5

5.1 Eligibility Criteria

  • Represents an eligible recipient as defined in Section 3.1;;
  • Represents an eligible project as defined in Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4; and
  • Meets the basic R&D definition in Section 3.5 (if applicable); and
  • Meets program funding provisions in Section 6.1.

5.2 Evaluation Criteria

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

For Project Phase 1:

  1. Innovation and Need (20% of overall score)
  2. Project Feasibility, Resources and Risk Assessment (20% of overall score)
  3. Outcomes and Benefits (60% of overall score)

For Project Phase 2:

  1. Project Feasibility, Resources and Risk Assessment (60% of overall score)
  2. Outcomes and Benefits (40% of the overall score)

The definition of the criteria and scoring grid are detailed in Appendix A.

5.3 Evaluation Process

Only applications that have met the eligibility criteria 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 will be familiar with the fields relevant to the applications and may include representatives from other Canadian Government departments as well as external consultants.

An application must achieve an overall minimum score of 60% for Project Phase 1 applications, and 70% for Project Phase 2 applications, as well as the specified minimum thresholds for each criterion to be considered further for funding.

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

The results obtained in this AO could take into account certain factors in the final decision to grant funding, such as, but not limited to, the representativeness of the four designated groups (woman, Aboriginal person, disabled person or member of a visible minority), regional distribution, academic level, distribution between universities and post-secondary educational institutions, etc.

Other factors may also be taken into account such as, but not limited to, the priorities of the Government of Canada and the CSA, growth potential, marketing opportunity, return on investment, involvement of HQP and students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), etc.

6 FUNDING

In this section 6

6.1 Available Funding and Duration

This initiative is structured in two phases. For Project Phase 1, CSA will provide to a maximum of 10 beneficiaries a maximum contribution of $150K per project over a maximum period of 4 months, for a maximum total of $1.5M. For Project Phase 2, CSA will provide to a maximum of 3 beneficiaries a maximum contribution of $2M over a maximum period of 36 months, for a maximum total of $6M. The total maximum available funding of the entire AO is $7.5M.

The maximum available funding and maximum number of beneficiaries could be increased at the discretion of the CSA.

Eligible recipients can be funded for only one (1) project under this AO.

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

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

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 contribution, with the CSA.

Grants or contributions

Eligible costs for contributions under this AO are the following:

  • salaries and benefits;
  • consultants services;
  • material and supplies;
  • acquisition or rental of equipment;
  • aircraft and watercraft charter services;
  • access fees;
  • laboratory analyses services;
  • licenses and permits fees;
  • data acquisition;
  • data management;
  • launcher services;
  • travel;
  • accommodation and meals allowances;
  • cost related to obtaining security clearance;
  • publication and communication services;
  • overhead (administrative) costs (not to exceed 20% of eligible costs for universities and 15% for other eligible recipients);
  • and PST, HST and GST net of any rebate to which the recipient is entitled to and the reimbursement of any taxes for goods and services acquired in a foreign country net of any rebate or reimbursement received in the foreign country.

7 FUNDING AGREEMENTS

In this section 7

7.1 Payments

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

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

7.2 Audit

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

7.3 Conflict of Interest

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

7.4 Intellectual Property

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

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 (L.R.Q., c. 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 relations 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:

  • Knowledge Creation
    • Knowledge production (including publications)
    • Presentations
    • Intellectual property (including patents)
  • Capacity Building
    • Project's research team (including highly qualified personnel supported)
  • Collaboration
    • Partners' contributions
    • Partnerships
    • Multidisciplinary

7.7 Open Access Publications

In the event that publications result from the project, the CSA wishes to promote the dissemination of findings that results from the projects it funds as quickly and to the greatest number of people as possible. Improved access to scientific results not only allows scientists to use a broader range of resources and knowledge, but also improves research collaboration and coordination, strengthens citizen engagement and supports the economy.

Thus, the CSA promotes the use of open access publication and archiving by recipients in order to facilitate the widest dissemination of findings that results from its funded projects. Thus, recipients are invited to publish, in a timely manner, their articles by using one of the following methods:

  1. Accessible online repository (institutional or disciplinary) so that the publication is freely accessible.
  2. Journal offering open access to articles.

It should be noted that these two methods are not mutually exclusive and that recipients are encouraged to use both.

Finally, the CSA wishes to receive, as a courtesy, a copy of the publications (if not freely accessible) or the hyperlink (if freely accessible) and its digital object identifier (DOI). These will be used to improve accessibility by including them in the CSA publications directory.

8 PRIVACY NOTICE STATEMENT

The CSA manages and protects the information provided by the applicant under the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.

The information is collected under the CSA Class G&C Program in Support of Awareness, Research and Learning - Research Component (ASC PPU 045) and Awareness and Learning Component (ASC PPU 040). This information will be used for administration and application evaluation purposes and for the administration and monitoring of any resulting contribution agreement

By submitting an application the applicant authorizes the CSA to undertake any consultation or verification, in particular with suppliers, financial institutions, accounting firms, funding agencies, credit agencies and/or any government agencies, that it deems necessary in order to obtain any useful information in assessing the application for financial assistance or for the administration and monitoring of any resulting contribution agreement, and it agrees to have the contacted parties disclose any requested information.

The CSA may seek input and advice from other government departments, agencies and organizations. By submitting an application the applicant authorizes the CSA to disclose the information it has about the applicant and the project to other government departments, agencies and organizations.

By submitting any personal information, you consent to its collection, use and disclosure in accordance with the Privacy Statement, which explains how the information about the applicant will be processed.

Personal information (such as name, contact information and biographical information) will be kept for 6 years and destroyed. According to the Privacy Act, any individual may, upon request,

  1. have access to his or her personal data and
  2. request correction of the incorrect information.

Applicants should also note that information relating to the Funding Agreement could be disclosed publicly in accordance with the laws, policies and directives of the Government of Canada.

For additional information regarding this statement, please contact:

Office of Access to Information and Privacy
Canadian Space Agency
Tel.: 450-926-4866
Email: aiprp-atip@asc-csa.gc.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 email address (pmi-sim@asc-csa.gc.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 1:00 p.m. (ET) .

  • Question 1: Is this award applicable to start-up companies attempting to bring their first product to the market?

    Answer 1: Startup companies attempting to bring their first product to the market are eligible for this AO. However, they must be duly incorporated or registered at the moment of submitting their application since, as stated in Section 4.1.1, proof of incorporation or registration and a copy of the document(s) confirming the legal name of the applicant must be included in the proposal.

  • Question 2: Does the requirement for 75% funding need to be met at the submission of the AO application for both phases? Or at each phase of the award? In other words, does Phase 2 funding need to be secured by the , due date?

    Answer 2: The requirement for 75% funding applies to each phase of the AO separately, however the Phase 2 funding does not have to be secured prior to Phase 1. The work during Phase 1 serves to produce, among other things, the detailed financing plan for Phase 2.

  • Question 3: Given that this AO does not apply to our initiative since we are not registered or incorporated yet, are there other opportunities the CSA is aware of that are more applicable to companies that are not yet established?

    Answer 3: Not at the CSA for such R&D activities; the terms and conditions of CSA's Class Grant and Contribution Program to Support Research, Awareness and Learning in Space Science and Technology – Research Component do not allow it to fund non-registered or non-incorporated entities (i.e. individuals).

  • Question 4: Referring to section 3.2 of the AO "Projects related to Application development, Earth Observation data, Satellite Telecommunications data, and Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) data are not eligible", Is the demonstration of a new Earth Observation instrument on board a cube sat (cube satellite) eligible for this AO?

    Answer 4: Yes. The project is eligible as it proposes to demonstrate new hardware in space. Projects that only propose to develop applications to process existing data are not eligible.

  • Question 5: Is the PI (Principal Investigator) fee an eligible expense? Can the project include teaching release for the PI?

    Answer 5: No. Neither of these costs are eligible under the Class Grant and Contribution Program.

  • Question 6: Can the 25% matching fund from non-government sources be in-kind fund? Such as industry professionals work for the project but their salaries are covered by industry. Or industry provides equipment to the project free of charge or at a reduced cost.

    Answer 6: No, in-kind contributions are not considered eligible costs. The funding amount should be an incurred cost by the applicant (See section 4 Sources of Funding, of the applicant form).

  • Question 7: For Project Phase 1, a maximum contribution of $150K per project; and for Project Phase 2, a maximum contribution of $2M. Does this mean maximum CSA $150k + $50k matching (total $200k) for Phase 1, and CSA $2 million + $666k matching (total $2.666 million) for Phase 2?

    Answer 7: CSA's maximum contributions per approved proposal for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are $150K and $2M, respectively. For each phase, the maximum combined amount of government assistance (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal) is 75% of total project eligible costs.

  • Question 8: Our intended project will need the collaboration from two organizations/universities, one focuses on developing and demonstrating the sensor system, and the other one focuses on developing the satellite system to support the sensor system demonstration in space. Should the supporting organization be a co-applicant of the project or a sub-contractor of the project?

    Answer 8: It is up to the organizations to decide how to structure themselves. They can apply as partners as outlined in the AO in Sections 3.1 and 4.1.1, where each partner organization will be considered liable in the contribution agreement. In this scenario, one of the organizations will act as "prime" to submit eligible costs for all the organizations involved, and refund payments will be made to that prime. Afterwards, the organizations can handle transfers between themselves.

    If the second organization is considered a sub-contractor or consultant to the bidding organization, then only the bidding organization has liability in the contribution agreement, and will submit the sub-contractor/consultant fees as they would any other eligible costs. Salary invoices submitted by the bidding organization are considered eligible costs as long as employees are not already being paid by the organization.

  • Question 9: The Principal Investigator (PI) from the proponent organization and the co-PI from the supporting organization will directly work on the project, on a part-time basis, that are required to achieve the expected results of the project. Their part-time salaries and benefits for the project are eligible costs based on the definition of 6.2 Eligible Costs. If the part-time salaries and benefits are covered by their organizations, this money should be considered as the organizations' matching contribution to the project. Correct? Therefore, this money can be used as a part of the 25% matching fund. Correct?

    Answer 9: No. Neither the PI or the co-PI salaries are eligible costs under the Class Grant and Contribution Program if they receive salaries from a university, and therefore cannot be considered to be a part of the matching contribution/25% matching fund.

10 Appendix A Point-Rated Evaluation Criteria

In this section 10

10.1 Point-Rated Criteria for Phase 1 – Definition

Application must receive an overall minimum score of 60% for Phase 1 applications as well as minimum specified thresholds to be considered for funding. Obtaining the highest score possible maximizes your chance of being selected to obtain financial support (see Section 6). The following point-rated criteria will be evaluated using 45 benchmark statements. Each benchmark statement will receive the following percentage of maximum points according to the following scale:

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

10.1.1 Innovation and Need (20% of overall score)

  • Maximum: 20 points
  • Minimum: 14 points (70%)

These evaluation criteria will only be used during the evaluation of proposals for Project Phase 1 – Definition.

10.1.1.1 Degree of Innovation
  • Maximum: 5 points

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

  • What is the degree of innovation being proposed?

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

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

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

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

10.1.1.2 Market Assessment / Scientific Needs
  • Maximum: 15 points

This criterion evaluates the applicant's understanding of the market needs OR scientific needs associated with the proposed technology. It includes a thorough analysis of market demand OR a thorough analysis of the underlying scientific question it addresses, why it's important to address it, who are the pertinent stakeholders interested in the outcomes and their level of influence. Incidentally, this criterion also evaluates whether the proposal addresses the existence and number of competing alternatives on the market. This criterion seeks answers to the following:

  • Is the applicant aware of its current market share or of the underlying scientific question it addresses?
  • What are the factors that drive the demand for this technology?
  • Who are the potential customers or stakeholders for this technology?
  • Who are the potential competitors and what alternatives do they offer?

Poor: The applicant is not aware of the current market OR does not provide scientific needs analysis pertaining to the technology being demonstrated and the many competitive alternatives already existing on the market. The proposal does not identify the factors that drive demand for this technology and the relevant customers/stakeholders and competitors. The proposal does not present a strategy for competing with the alternatives.

Average: The applicant has limited knowledge of the current market OR provides a limited scientific needs analysis pertaining to the technology being demonstrated. Some competitive alternatives exist in the market. The proposal identifies some of the factors that drive demand for this technology being demonstrated, but does not identify the relevant customers/stakeholders and competitors. The proposal provides an insufficient plan for competing with the alternatives.

Good: The applicant has a good understanding of the current market share OR provides a comprehensive scientific needs analysis pertaining to the technology being demonstrated. A limited number of competitive alternatives exist on the market. The proposal identifies an extensive list of factors that drive demand for this technology and the relevant customers/stakeholders and competitors. The proposal provides a detailed plan for competing with those alternatives.

Excellent: The applicant demonstrates an in-depth understanding of the current market share OR provides a detailed and convincing scientific needs analysis pertaining to the technology being demonstrated. Very few or no competitive alternatives exist on the market. The proposal clearly identifies all the factors that drive demand for this technology and the relevant customers/stakeholders and competitors. The proposal provides a comprehensive and convincing plan for competing with any alternatives.

10.1.2 Project Feasibility, Resources and Risk Assessment (20% of overall score)

10.1.2.1 Project clarity, completeness, feasibility and risk assessment
  • Maximum: 20 points
  • Minimum: 10 points (50%)

This criterion evaluates the completeness and effectiveness of the proposed implementation plan in directing the project to successful completion as well as the combined technical qualifications and experience of the team assembled to carry out the proposed work.

Both Phases 1 and 2 implementation plans will be evaluated during the Phase 1 application process.

The Phase 1 implementation plan is expected to be detailed and complete in all aspects.

The Phase 2 implementation plan is expected to be an overview of what is projected for Phase 2 with sufficient details to give a good perspective and understanding of the risks involved and of the resources that will be required at a high level in order to assess the proposed project feasibility in its entirety.

(During the Phase 2 application process, the Phase 2 implementation plan will be expected to be detailed and complete in all aspects.)

This criterion seeks answers to the following:

  • Does the combined team have the necessary technical/scientific and managerial qualifications to execute the project?
  • Does the proposal include a clear and complete Phase 1 implementation plan consisting of a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), detailed Work Package Descriptions (WPD), schedule, milestones, resources (personnel, facilities, laboratories, field sites, specialized equipment, etc.) availability and allocation as well as risk identification and mitigation?
  • Does the proposal include a high level Phase 2 implementation plan consisting of a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) including high level Work Package Descriptions (WPD), schedule, milestones, resources needed as well as a high level risk identification?
  • Does each of the proposed implementation plans seem credible and well suited to the project objectives, and does it embody sound methodology and management and is it coherent with the degree of maturity of the technology.

Poor: The Phase 1 implementation plan is poorly defined, incomplete or difficult to understand. There is a high likelihood that the objectives will not be met due to inappropriate methodology, technical team, budget, schedule, key risks or availability of resources. The technology being demonstrated will not be ready by the forecasted flight readiness review date and demonstration flight. The Phase 2 implementation plan does not provide sufficient information to assess the feasibility of the proposed project.

Average: The Phase 1 implementation plan is somewhat defined but lacks details or clarity. Doubts remain regarding the technical methodology of the proposed work, qualifications of the technical team, and the likelihood that the objectives will be met. The Phase 2 implementation plan provides minimum information to assess the feasibility of the proposed project and leaves doubt with regards to the feasibility of the Phase 2.

Good: The Phase 1 implementation plan is complete and well defined. The proposed methodology seems adequately suited for the proposed work to be carried out and the technical team has worked with closely related technologies. The expectation that the proposed work will meet the set objectives and be completed on schedule and within budget is credible. The Phase 2 implementation plan provides sufficient information and a good perspective and understanding of the proposed project feasibility.

Excellent: The Phase 1 implementation plan is complete, very well defined and coherent. The methodology described is logical and well suited for the proposed work to be carried out. The proposed team possesses all the qualifications and experience required to perform the proposed work. The likelihood that the proposed work will meet the set objectives and be completed on schedule and within budget is high and the technology being demonstrated will be clearly ready by the forecasted flight readiness review date and demonstration flight. The Phase 2 implementation plan provides strong confidence that the proposed project can be executed with low risk.

10.1.3 Outcomes and Benefits (60% of overall score)

  • Maximum: 60 points
  • Minimum: 30 points (50%)
10.1.3.1 Path to Commercial or Scientific Opportunity
  • Maximum: 20 points

Projects should strive to generate economic benefits or scientific opportunities in the short to medium term, within 2 to 5 years following project completion.

This criterion evaluates the applicant's roadmap to achieving commercial or scientific opportunities. This criterion seeks answers to the following:

  • Does the applicant have a post-project strategy, with expected budget and schedule, to finalize the development of the technology in order to achieve commercial results?
  • Or, does the applicant have a post-project strategy, with expected budget and schedule, to have the technology part of a scientific payload for an eventual scientific mission in space?
  • What are the opportunities to re-use the technology in space or on Earth?

Poor: No relevant future missions have been identified for this technology. The proposal provides a poor or no post-project strategy to finalize the development of the technology for commercial or scientific opportunities.

Average: The proposal somewhat identifies relevant future space missions targeted for this technology. The proposal provides an average post-project strategy with limited information on budget, schedule and sources of funding to finalize the development of the technology for commercial or scientific opportunities.

Good: The proposal identifies relevant future space missions targeted for this technology. The proposal provides a good post-project strategy with information on budget, schedule and sources of funding to finalize the development of the technology for commercial or scientific opportunities. The proposal demonstrates some potential to re-use the technology in space or on Earth.

Excellent: The proposal clearly identifies relevant future space missions targeted for this technology. The proposal provides an excellent post-project strategy with clear information on budget, schedule and sources of funding to finalize the development of the technology for commercial or scientific opportunities. The proposal demonstrates clear opportunities to also re-use the technology in space or on Earth.

10.1.3.2 Benefits / outcomes of demonstration
  • Maximum: 40 points

Projects should strive to generate economic benefits or scientific opportunities in the short to medium term, within 2 to 5 years following project completion.

This criterion evaluates the suitability of, and benefits (value) in performing a demonstration of the proposed technology in space.

Note:

Commercial opportunities should be characterized in terms of competitive advantage and/or overall market share. It is recognized that an improvement in the applicant's overall market share (or competitive advantage) can be achieved through creating a new market, penetrating for the first time an existing one and/or increasing one's position in an already accessed market.

Scientific opportunities should be characterized in terms of potential for integrating the technology in a scientific payload for an eventual scientific mission in space.

This criterion seeks to answer the following questions:

  • What is the value and impact of performing a demonstration of the proposed technology?
  • What impact will the project have on the applicant's growth in terms of size (workforce) and revenue?
  • What are the anticipated socio-economic benefits/impacts from this demonstration?
  • Do the benefits of this demonstration outweigh the costs?

Poor: The proposed project is unlikely to improve the applicant's competitive advantage and overall growth in terms of revenue and size OR will not lead to any opportunity for integrating the technology in a scientific payload for an eventual scientific mission in space. The benefits of the results attained from the demonstration do not outweigh the costs of the project.

Average: The proposed project is likely to improve the applicant's competitive advantage and is likely to have an impact on the applicant's growth in terms of revenue and size OR is likely to lead to at least one opportunity for integrating the technology in a scientific payload for an eventual scientific mission in space. The benefits of the results attained from the demonstration are equivalent to the costs of the project.

Good: The proposed project will improve the applicant's competitive advantage and is likely to have an impact on the applicant's growth in terms of revenue and size OR will lead to some opportunities for integrating the technology in a scientific payload for an eventual scientific mission in space. The benefits of the results attained from the demonstration outweigh the costs of the project.

Excellent: The proposed project will substantially improve the applicant's competitive advantage and overall growth in terms of revenue and size OR will lead to many opportunities for integrating the technology in a scientific payload for an eventual scientific mission in space. The proposal includes formally expressed interest of clients and/or relevant stakeholders (Letters of Interest, Memorandums of understanding [MOUs], Memorandums of agreement [MOAs], etc.). The benefits of the results attained from the demonstration far outweigh the costs of the project.

10.2 Point-Rated Criteria for Phase 2 – Implementation

A Phase 2 Application must receive an overall minimum score of 70% for Phase 2 applications as well as minimum specified thresholds to be considered for funding. Obtaining the highest score possible maximizes your chance of being selected to obtain financial support (see Section 6). The following point-rated criteria will be evaluated using 3 benchmark statements. Each benchmark statement will receive the following percentage of maximum points according to the following scale:

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

10.2.1 Project Feasibility, Resources and Risk Assessment (60% of overall score)

10.2.1.1 Project clarity, completeness, feasibility and risk assessment
  • Maximum: 60 points
  • Minimum: 42 points (70%)

This criterion evaluates the completeness and effectiveness of the proposed implementation plan in directing the project to successful completion as well as the combined technical qualifications and experience of the team assembled to carry out the proposed work.

This criterion seeks answers to the following:

  • Does the combined team have the necessary technical/scientific and managerial qualifications to execute the project?
  • Does the proposal include a clear and complete implementation plan consisting of a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), detailed Work Package Descriptions (WPD), schedule, milestones, resource (personnel, facilities, laboratories, field sites, specialized equipment, etc.) availability and allocation as well as risk identification and mitigation?
  • Does the proposed implementation plan seem credible and well suited to the project objectives, and does it embody sound methodology and management and is it coherent with the degree of maturity of the technology as well as the launch service provider by the forecasted flight readiness review date, in order to demonstrate capability?

Poor: The implementation plan is poorly defined, incomplete or difficult to understand. There is a high likelihood that the objectives will not be met due to inappropriate methodology, technical team, budget, schedule, key risks or availability of resources. The technology being demonstrated will not be ready by the forecasted flight readiness review date and demonstration flight.

Average: The implementation plan is somewhat defined but lacks details or clarity. Doubts remain regarding the technical methodology of the proposed work, qualifications of the technical team, the likelihood that the objectives will be met or the forecasted flight readiness review date or demonstration flight.

Good: The implementation plan is complete and well defined. The proposed methodology seems adequately suited for the proposed work to be carried out and the technical team has worked with closely related technologies. The expectation that the proposed work will meet the set objectives and be completed on schedule and within budget is credible. The technology being demonstrated should be ready by the forecasted flight readiness review date and demonstration flight.

Excellent: The implementation plan is complete, very well defined and coherent. The methodology described is logical and well suited for the proposed work to be carried out. The proposed team possesses all the qualifications and experience required to perform the proposed work. The likelihood that the proposed work will meet the set objectives and be completed on schedule and within budget is high and the technology being demonstrated will be clearly ready by the forecasted flight readiness review date and demonstration flight.

10.2.2 Outcomes and Benefits (40% of overall score)

  • Maximum: 40 points
  • Minimum: 28 points (70%)
10.2.2.1 Path to Commercial or Scientific Opportunity
  • Maximum: 20 points

Projects should strive to generate economic benefits or scientific opportunities in the short to medium term, within 2 to 5 years following project completion.

This criterion evaluates the applicant's roadmap to achieving commercial or scientific opportunities. This criterion seeks answers to the following:

  • Does the applicant have a post-project strategy, with expected budget and schedule, to finalize the development of the technology in order to achieve commercial results?
  • Or, does the applicant have a post-project strategy, with expected budget and schedule, to have the technology part of a scientific payload for an eventual scientific mission in space?
  • What are the opportunities to re-use the technology in space or on Earth?

Poor: No relevant future missions have been identified for this technology. The proposal provides a poor or no post-project strategy to finalize the development of the technology for commercial or scientific opportunities.

Average: The proposal somewhat identifies relevant future space missions targeted for this technology. The proposal provides an average post-project strategy with limited information on budget, schedule and sources of funding to finalize the development of the technology for commercial or scientific opportunities.

Good: The proposal identifies relevant future space missions targeted for this technology. The proposal provides a good post-project strategy with information on budget, schedule and sources of funding to finalize the development of the technology for commercial or scientific opportunities. The proposal demonstrates some potential to re-use the technology in space or on Earth.

Excellent: The proposal clearly identifies relevant future space missions targeted for this technology. The proposal provides an excellent post-project strategy with clear information on budget, schedule and sources of funding to finalize the development of the technology for commercial or scientific opportunities. The proposal demonstrates clear opportunities to also re-use the technology in space or on Earth.

10.2.2.2 Benefits / outcomes of demonstration
  • Maximum: 20 points

Projects should strive to generate economic benefits or scientific opportunities in the short to medium term, within 2 to 5 years following project completion.

This criterion evaluates the suitability of, and benefits (value) in performing a demonstration of the proposed technology in space.

Note:

Commercial opportunities should be characterized in terms of competitive advantage and/or overall market share. It is recognized that an improvement in the applicant's overall market share (or competitive advantage) can be achieved through creating a new market, penetrating for the first time an existing one and/or increasing one's position in an already accessed market.

Scientific opportunities should be characterized in terms of potential for integrating the technology in a scientific payload for an eventual scientific mission in space.

This criterion seeks to answer the following questions:

  • What is the value and impact
  • What impact will the project have on the applicant's growth in terms of size (workforce) and revenue?
  • What are the anticipated socio-economic benefits/impacts from this demonstration?
  • Do the benefits of this demonstration outweigh the costs?

Poor: The proposed project is unlikely to improve the applicant's competitive advantage and overall growth in terms of revenue and size OR will not lead to any opportunity for integrating the technology in a scientific payload for an eventual scientific mission in space. The benefits of the results attained from the demonstration do not outweigh the costs of the project.

Average: The proposed project is likely to improve the applicant's competitive advantage and is likely to have an impact on the applicant's growth in terms of revenue and size OR is likely to lead to at least one opportunity for integrating the technology in a scientific payload for an eventual scientific mission in space. The benefits of the results attained from the demonstration are equivalent to the costs of the project.

Good: The proposed project will improve the applicant's competitive advantage and is likely to have an impact on the applicant's growth in terms of revenue and size OR will lead to some opportunities for integrating the technology in a scientific payload for an eventual scientific mission in space. The benefits of the results attained from the demonstration outweigh the costs of the project.

Excellent: The proposed project will substantially improve the applicant's competitive advantage and overall growth in terms of revenue and size OR will lead to many opportunities for integrating the technology in a scientific payload for an eventual scientific mission in space. The proposal includes formally expressed interest of clients and/or relevant stakeholders (Letters of Interest, Memorandums of understanding [MOUs], Memorandums of agreement [MOAs], etc.). The benefits of the results attained from the demonstration far outweigh the costs of the project.

Date modified: