Assessment Criteria

To find out what we are looking for in your applications, please consider our assessment criteria.

The details of each criteria are available in the drop down menu below, and also as part of the package downloaded from the BRAVO procurement portal (available when you register to apply to the fund).

Level of innovation
  • How innovative is the idea proposed in this project?
  • To what extent does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools or technologies for this area?

Innovation Scoring Guidance (criteria no.1 only)

10 – highest level of innovation proposing a very new idea

8 – high level of innovation of a known idea but not yet tested in the area

6 – innovation involving a pre-existing idea with an innovative modification

4 – transfer to a new species or geography

2 – an idea with very little innovation

0 – no innovation proposed

Weighting 100

Value for money
  • Are the costs appropriate and fully justified?
  • Is the total project cost realistic and appropriate for the proposed solution?
  • Does the proposal offer matched funding e.g. monetary, unpaid staff time, equipment, facilities etc.?

Weighting: 90

Benefits
  • Does the proposal clearly outline the project benefits in terms of quantifiable measures linked to the programme objectives?
  • For example: reduced costs, reduced losses, improved margins, improved environmental impacts, reduced carbon footprint etc.
  • Does the proposal demonstrate long term (at least 10 years) benefits to the environment and industry?

Weighting: 80

Engagement
  • Is there evidence of industry/policy/regulatory support for the idea?
  • Is there evidence of new partnerships or collaborations between relevant individuals/organisations?
  • Does the project stimulate engagement between technology providers and the seafood industry?

Weighting: 60

Uptake and commercial potential
  • Is the output scalable beyond the specific area focused on in the proposal?
  • Does the proposal show a clear plan for establishing technical and commercial feasibility and the development of a working prototype AND/OR is there a clear plan for the uptake of the approach or service by the market? 
  • Does the applicant demonstrate understanding of how the output would be maintained and funded beyond the lifetime of the project, ensuring long-term improvements in the sustainability and productivity of the fishing and aquaculture industries?     
  • How significant is the competitive advantage which this technology/service affords over existing solutions that can meet the market needs?

Weighting: 60

Achievability
  • How viable is the proposed approach?
  • Does the proposal demonstrate a clear management plan with appropriate milestones and realistic timelines?
  • Are the risks (technical, commercial and environmental) clearly identified and understood, with appropriate mitigation actions outlined? 
  • To what extent does the project team appear to have the right skills, capabilities and experience to deliver the project?

Weighting: 20

What is the scoring guidance for each criteria?

 

Excellent (10 pts)

Addresses all of the requirements and provides a response with relevant supporting information which does not contain any weaknesses, giving the Authority complete confidence that the requirements will be met.

Very Good (8 pts)

Addresses all of the requirements and provides a response with relevant supporting information, which contains very minor weaknesses, giving the Authority high confidence that the requirements will be met.

Good (6 pts)

Addresses all of the requirements and provides a response with relevant supporting information, which contains minor weaknesses, giving the Authority reasonable confidence that the requirements will be met.

Satisfactory (4 pts)

Substantially addresses the requirements and provides a response with relevant supporting information which may contain moderate weaknesses, but gives the Authority some confidence that the requirements will be met.

Weak (2 pts)

Partially addresses the requirements, or provides supporting information that is of limited relevance or contains significant weaknesses, and therefore gives the Authority low confidence that the requirements will be met.

Nil (0 pts)

No response or provides a response that gives the Authority no confidence that the requirements will be met.