Notice

Guidance Note E – C-LEO Call 3 Stage Two Criteria

Updated 20 July 2026

Guidance Note E – Stage Two Criteria

This document provides expanded guidance on the UK Space Agency’s Stage Two 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.

1. Strategic Fit

1.1 Applicant Guidance

Your proposal should clearly demonstrate how it advances the strategic aims of the C‑LEO Programme and aligns to 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 credible alignment to C-LEO objectives, wider UK government priorities, ability to strengthen UK capabilities, or UK need. Information not provided on all guidance points listed in Stage Two form.

• 1 - Very limited or unclear alignment to C-LEO objectives, wider UK government priorities, ability to strengthen UK capabilities, or UK need.

• 2 - Some alignment to C-LEO objectives, wider UK government priorities, ability to strengthen UK capabilities, or UK need, but lacks clarity or supporting detail.

• 3 - Clear alignment to one or more C-LEO objectives, wider UK government priorities, ability to strengthen UK capabilities, or UK need, with a basic but coherent rationale.

• 4 - Strong 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 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

20%

2. Value for Money

2.1 Applicant Guidance

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

2.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

• 0 — No evidence of cost rationale, funding need and expected return on investment. Information not provided on all guidance points listed in Stage Two form.

• 1 — Very limited or unclear evidence on cost rationale, funding need, and expected return on investment.
• 2 — Some evidence of cost rationale, funding need, and expected return on investment, but limited confidence in value for money.
• 3 — Clear evidence of cost rationale, funding need, and expected return on investment, with a basic but coherent rationale; costs appear broadly proportionate to scope.
• 4 — Strong evidence of cost rationale, funding need and expected return on investment, with confidence that costs are realistic.
• 5 — Highly compelling evidence of cost rationale, funding need and expected return on investment, demonstrating efficient use of public funds and strong proportionality.

2.3 Weighting

20%

3. Catalyse Investment

3.1 Applicant Guidance

Your proposal should clearly demonstrate the expected economic benefits, the commercial opportunity and route to market. Your proposal should clearly demonstrate your commercial competitors. Your proposal should clearly demonstrate potential follow-on investment or commercial revenue.

3.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

• 0 — No evidence of expected economic benefits, commercial opportunity, analysis of commercial competitors, or potential follow-on investment or commercial revenue. Information not provided on all guidance points listed in Stage Two form.

• 1 — Very limited or unclear evidence of expected economic benefits, commercial opportunity, analysis of commercial competitors, or potential follow-on investment or commercial revenue.
• 2 — Some evidence of expected economic benefits, commercial opportunity, analysis of commercial competitors, or potential follow-on investment or commercial revenue, but lacks clarity or supporting detail.
• 3 — Clear evidence of expected economic benefits, commercial opportunity, analysis of commercial competitors, or potential follow-on investment or commercial revenue, with a basic but coherent rationale.
• 4 — Strong evidence of expected economic benefits, commercial opportunity, analysis of commercial competitors, or potential follow-on investment or commercial revenue, with confidence that the expected benefits are realistic.
• 5 — Highly compelling evidence of expected economic benefits, commercial opportunity, analysis of commercial competitors, or potential follow-on investment or commercial revenue, supported by concise and credible evidence.

3.3 Weighting

20%

4. Innovation & Technical Feasibility

4.1 Applicant Guidance

Your proposal should clearly demonstrate what differentiates your proposed solution from existing technologies. Your proposal should clearly demonstrate the technical approach and methodology. Your proposal should clearly demonstrate the expected TRL progression and key deliverables.

4.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

• 0 — No evidence of the proposal being novel or differentiated, no detail of technical approach and methodology, and no demonstration of TRL progression. Information not provided on all guidance points listed in Stage Two form.

• 1 — Very limited or unclear evidence of the proposal being novel or differentiated, detail of technical approach and methodology, and demonstration of TRL progression.
• 2 — Some evidence of the proposal being novel or differentiated, detail of technical approach and methodology, and demonstration of TRL progression, but lacks clarity or supporting detail.
• 3 — Clear evidence of the proposal being novel or differentiated, detail of technical approach and methodology, and demonstration of TRL progression, with a basic but coherent rationale.
• 4 — Strong evidence of the proposal being novel or differentiated, detail of technical approach and methodology, and demonstration of TRL progression, with confidence that the proposal is technically feasible.
• 5 — Highly compelling evidence of the proposal being novel or differentiated, detail of technical approach and methodology, and demonstration of TRL progression, supported by concise and credible evidence.

4.3 Weighting

20%

5. Project Management

5.1 Applicant Guidance

Your proposal should clearly demonstrate a milestone breakdown, a detailed risk register, a Gantt Chart and a CV for project leads. Your proposal should clearly demonstrate the governance structure, and explain the team’s capability and experience.

5.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

• 0 – No evidence of a milestone breakdown, risk register, Gantt Chart, CVs for project leads, governance structure or explanation of team’s capabilities and experience. Information not provided on all guidance points listed in Stage Two form.

• 1 - Very limited or unclear evidence of a milestone breakdown, risk register, Gantt Chart, CVs for project leads, governance structure or explanation of team’s capabilities and experience.

• 2 - Some evidence of a milestone breakdown, risk register, Gantt Chart, CVs for project leads, governance structure or explanation of team’s capabilities and experience, but lacks clarity or supporting detail.

• 3 - Clear evidence of a milestone breakdown, risk register, Gantt Chart, CVs for project leads, governance structure or explanation of team’s capabilities and experience, with a basic but coherent rationale.

• 4 - Strong evidence of a milestone breakdown, risk register, Gantt Chart, CVs for project leads, governance structure or explanation of team’s capabilities and experience, with confidence that project management is feasible.

• 5 - Highly compelling evidence of a milestone breakdown, risk register, Gantt Chart, CVs for project leads, governance structure or explanation of team’s capabilities and experience, supported by concise and credible evidence.

5.3 Weighting

10%

6. Benefits

6.1 Applicant Guidance

Your proposal should clearly demonstrate how benefits will be monitored throughout the project lifecycle, and how the benefits will be realised. Your proposal should clearly demonstrate the key risks to benefits realisation.

6.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

Score 0

• 0 - No evidence of benefit monitoring, benefits realisation plan, and analysis of key risks to benefits realisation. Information not provided on all guidance points listed in Stage Two form.

• 1 - Very limited or unclear evidence of benefit monitoring, benefits realisation plan, and analysis of key risks to benefits realisation.

• 2 - Some evidence of benefit monitoring, benefits realisation plan, and analysis of key risks to benefits realisation, but lacks clarity or supporting detail.

• 3 - Clear evidence of benefit monitoring, benefits realisation plan, and analysis of key risks to benefits realisation, with a basic but coherent rationale.

• 4 – Strong evidence of benefit monitoring, benefits realisation plan, and analysis of key risks to benefits realisation, with confidence that benefits realisation is feasible.

• 5 – Highly compelling evidence of benefit monitoring, benefits realisation plan, and analysis of key risks to benefits realisation, supported by concise and credible evidence.

6.3 Weighting

10%