Notice

Guidance Note D – C-LEO Call 3 Stage One Criteria

Updated 20 July 2026

Guidance Note D – Stage One Criteria

This document provides expanded guidance on the UK Space Agency’s Stage One assessment criteria for C‑LEO Call 3: National Only, setting out how proposals will be assessed and what applicants should address to demonstrate alignment with each assessment criteria.

Minimum score: Applicants are to note that their Stage One application must score a minimum of 3 on each of the criteria to progress to Stage Two application. Any applications scoring less than 3 on any criteria will not progress to Stage Two applications.  

1. Strategic Fit

1.1 Applicant Guidance

Your proposal should provide an overview of how your proposal aligns with the strategic aims of the C-LEO Programme and wider UK Government priorities.

The C-LEO technologies are On-Board Processing, Active Antennas, Optical Inter-Satellite Links, Networking and Routing, User Terminals.

The C-LEO objectives are to:

• Accelerate the commercialisation and rapid industrialisation of key technologies and capabilities for high-volume constellations.
• Help UK companies secure a significant share of high-value contracts expected over the next 4–5 years.
• Develop UK onshore industrial capabilities in R&D-intensive areas of the constellation value chain.
• Catalyse private sector investment by signalling the UK’s long-term commitment to the satcoms sector.

Stronger responses will also reference wider Government priorities (e.g. net zero, regional growth, Space Industrial Plan).

1.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

• 0 — No indication of alignment to C-LEO objectives, wider UK government priorities, and ability to strengthen UK capabilities. Information not provided on all guidance points listed in Stage One form.
• 1 — Very limited or unclear indication of alignment to C-LEO objectives, wider UK government priorities, and ability to strengthen UK capabilities.
• 2 — Some indication of alignment to C-LEO objectives, wider UK government priorities, and ability to strengthen UK capabilities, but lacks clarity or supporting detail.
• 3 — Clear indication of alignment to one or more C‑LEO objectives, wider UK government priorities, and ability to strengthen UK capabilities, with a basic but coherent rationale.
• 4 — Strong indication of alignment to multiple C-LEO objectives, wider UK government priorities, and ability to strengthen UK capabilities, with confidence in strategic relevance and clear UK benefit.
• 5 — Highly compelling indication of alignment to multiple C-LEO objectives, wider UK government priorities, and ability to strengthen UK capabilities, supported by concise and credible evidence.

1.3 Weighting

25%

2. Value for Money

2.1 Applicant Guidance

Your proposal should provide an overview of how costs are proportionate and how they have been calculated. Your proposal should justify why public funding is required for this proposal. Your proposal should also provide an overview of the expected return on investment over the next 10 years.

2.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

• 0 — No explanation of cost rationale, funding need and expected return on investment. Information not provided on all guidance points listed in Stage One form.
• 1 — Very limited or unclear information on cost rationale, funding need, and expected return on investment.
• 2 — Some indication of cost rationale, funding need, and expected return on investment, but limited confidence in value for money.
• 3 — Clear indication of cost rationale, funding need, and expected return on investment, with a basic but coherent rationale; costs appear broadly proportionate to scope.
• 4 — Strong indication of cost rationale, funding need and expected return on investment, with confidence that costs are realistic.
• 5 — Highly compelling indication of cost rationale, funding need and expected return on investment, demonstrating efficient use of public funds and strong proportionality.

2.3 Weighting

25%

3. Catalyse Investment

3.1 Applicant Guidance

Your proposal should provide an overview of your proposal’s expected economic benefits, and potential follow-on investment or commercial revenue. Your proposal should provide an overview of the commercial opportunity and route to market.

3.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

• 0 — No indication of expected economic benefits, potential follow-on investment or commercial revenue, or commercial opportunity. Information not provided on all guidance points listed in Stage One form.
• 1 — Very limited or unclear indication of expected economic benefits, potential follow-on investment or commercial revenue, or commercial opportunity.
• 2 — Some indication of expected economic benefits, potential follow-on investment or commercial revenue, or commercial opportunity, but lacks clarity or supporting detail.
• 3 — Clear indication of expected economic benefits, potential follow-on investment or commercial revenue, or commercial opportunity, with a basic but coherent rationale.
• 4 — Strong indication of expected economic benefits, potential follow-on investment or commercial revenue, or commercial opportunity, with confidence that the expected benefits are realistic.
• 5 — Highly compelling indication of expected economic benefits, potential follow-on investment or commercial revenue, or commercial opportunity, supported by concise and credible evidence.

3.3 Weighting

25%

4. Innovation

4.1 Applicant Guidance

Your proposal should provide an overview of how the proposal is novel or differentiated, and an outline of the intended objectives and outputs of the proposal.

4.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

• 0 — No indication of the proposal being novel or differentiated, no detail on intended objectives and outputs. Information not provided on all guidance points listed in Stage One form.
• 1 — Very limited or unclear indication of the proposal being novel or differentiated, with limited detail on intended objectives and outputs.
• 2 — Some indication of the proposal being novel or differentiated, with some detail on intended objectives and outputs, but lacks clarity or supporting detail.
• 3 — Clear indication of the proposal being novel or differentiated, with clear detail on intended objectives and outputs, with a basic but coherent rationale.
• 4 — Strong indication of the proposal being novel or differentiated, with strong detail on intended objectives and outputs, with confidence that the objectives and outputs are feasible.
• 5 — Highly compelling indication of the proposal being novel or differentiated, with compelling detail on intended objectives and outputs, supported by concise and credible evidence.

4.3 Weighting

25%