Notice

Appendix D: Stage Two Criteria

Published 4 March 2026

1. Strategic Fit

1.1 Applicant Guidance

Your proposal should clearly demonstrate how it advances the strategic goals of the C‑LEO Programme by directly targeting or strongly aligning with one or more of the key technology areas:

• On‑Board (Regenerative) Processing (OBP)
• Active Antennas
• Optical Links
• Networking and Routing
• User Terminals (UT)

Explain how your project will:

• Accelerate the commercialisation and rapid industrialisation of key technologies and capabilities to meet high‑volume constellation demand.
• Help UK companies secure a significant and sustained share of high‑value contracts expected over the next 4–5 years.
• Develop the UK’s onshore industrial capabilities in R&D‑intensive activities across the constellation value chain.
• Catalyse private sector investment by signalling the UK’s long‑term commitment to the growth of the satellite communications sector.

You should also:

• Outline how each technology area will be progressed if the project addresses multiple areas.
• Demonstrate alignment with wider Government objectives (e.g. net zero, levelling up, Space Industrial Plan).
• Show how outcomes benefit the UK’s space sector, supply chains, or economic growth.
• Confirm that proposals are led by UK‑registered organisations and delivered from the UK.

1.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

Score 0

• No credible alignment to call objectives; fundamental misunderstandings.

Score 1

• Weak alignment; generic statements; significant gaps.

Score 2

• Partial alignment; UK benefit weakly evidenced.

Score 3

• Clear alignment with adequate evidence.

Score 4

• Strong alignment with specific supporting evidence.

Score 5

• Compelling, well‑evidenced alignment and strong UK strategic advantage.

1.3 Weighting

30%

2. Value for Money

2.1 Applicant Guidance

You should:

• Explain how project costs have been calculated to ensure they are minimal, appropriate, and represent good value for money.
• Show steps taken to verify quotes and mitigate costs.
• Demonstrate that requested funding is within published limits and proportionate to the ambition of the C‑LEO programme.
• Provide a clear rationale for why public funding is the most effective route.

2.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

Score 0

• Costs unsupported, inconsistent, or unjustified.

Score 1

• Major weaknesses; low confidence in value for money.

Score 2

• Partial explanation but major gaps.

Score 3

• Generally well‑explained and proportionate.

Score 4

• Strong, robust cost case and convincing additionality.

Score 5

• Excellent value for money; efficient, well‑evidenced budget.

2.3 Weighting

10%

3. Catalyse Investment

3.1 Applicant Guidance

Summarise how your project will:

• Attract additional investment or external funding after completion.
• Drive industry growth, job creation, and supply‑chain benefits.
• Strengthen the UK’s position in the global satellite communications sector.
• Support future growth, new skills, or employment.
• Provide clear, justified growth estimates.

3.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

Score 0

• No credible investment pathway.

Score 1

• Weak or speculative claims; unsupported.

Score 2

• Some potential but low confidence.

Score 3

• Credible pathway, reasonably evidenced.

Score 4

• Strong, well‑evidenced, realistic impacts.

Score 5

• Highly compelling investment case with strong evidence.

3.3 Weighting

20%

4. Project Management

4.1 Applicant Guidance

You should:

• Describe project delivery, management approach, risks, and timescales.
• Identify required resources, skills, subcontractors, and how they will be managed.
• Provide a breakdown of work packages, milestones, resource allocation.
• Include a Gantt chart or similar schedule.
• Present a scored risk register with mitigations.
• State current and target TRLs and show progression steps.

4.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

Score 0

• Undeliverable due to major planning/governance issues.

Score 1

• Significant weaknesses threatening delivery.

Score 2

• Concerns about delivery; risks not well addressed.

Score 3

• Adequate plan; moderate confidence.

Score 4

• Good governance, realistic planning, strong mitigation.

Score 5

• Highly robust plan with strong delivery confidence.

4.3 Weighting

10%

5. Technical Feasibility

5.1 Applicant Guidance

You must:

• Demonstrate feasibility and likelihood of success.
• Outline research methodology, prior development work, and planned technical activities.
• Reference engineering best practice or technology development roadmaps.
• Identify and cross‑reference specific technical risks.
• Explain innovation clearly.

5.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

Score 0

• Fundamentally flawed or undeliverable.

Score 1

• High technical risk; no credible mitigation.

Score 2

• Approach raises concerns; TRL progression unclear.

Score 3

• Credible approach; some weaknesses.

Score 4

• Strong plan and realistic validation.

Score 5

• Highly robust, innovative, and achievable.

5.3 Weighting

15%

6. Environmental

6.1 Applicant Guidance

Responses should show:

• How the project positively affects the environment.
• How sustainability is embedded across all aspects of delivery.
• Supply‑chain sustainability consideration.
• Long‑term environmental practices.

6.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

Score 0

• No environmental consideration.

Score 1

• Minimal or token consideration.

Score 2

• Limited and unconvincing.

Score 3

• Reasonable but with gaps.

Score 4

• Clear and credible sustainability approach.

Score 5

• Comprehensive sustainability embedded throughout.

6.3 Weighting

5%

7. Benefits

7.1 Applicant Guidance

Responses should:

• Demonstrate how the proposal will deliver the call’s benefits.
• Describe the methodology for tracking and recording benefits.
• Include:
  • Requested benefits and how they will be delivered
  • Delivery methodology
  • KPIs or metrics
  • Monitoring and deviation‑handling approach
  • Barriers and mitigation
  • Alignment with project objectives
  • Assumptions list

7.2 Evaluator Guidance on Scoring

Score 0

• No benefits identified.

Score 1

• Vague or unlikely benefits.

Score 2

• Some benefits, weak evidence.

Score 3

• Clear benefits with adequate monitoring.

Score 4

• Strong, credible benefits with metrics.

Score 5

• Compelling, well‑evidenced benefits with high confidence.

7.3 Weighting

10%