IAP How to write a proposal · 2014-10-10 · - Broadband: SES Astra, Inmarsat, Avanti, Eutelsat,...

ESA Presentation | 03/06/2014 | Slide 1ESA UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use

IAP

How to write a proposal

Bremen, 03/06/2014Document Number: ESA-TIAA-HO-2014-0241


ESA’s Integrated Applications Promotion Programme (ARTES 20)

The goal :Foster new utilization of existing space capacity and

capability, in close partnership with end-users, through

the development of integrated (different space and non

space technologies) applications projects which

demonstrate a potential for sustainable services.

Addressing global challenges in different thematic areas:

Space for: Health, Security, Safety, Transport, Energy,

Environment, Agriculture, Insurance, …

Incubator of Services


Earth Observation

Tele-communication Navigation

Developing new services for new user communities

Manned Space Flight


- Optical: Geoeye, Landsat, Spot

- Radar: Radarsat, Terrasar-X, Cosmo Skymed

(GMES –Sentinels)

- Narrowband: Inmarsat, Iridium, Globalstar- Broadband: SES Astra, Inmarsat, Avanti, Eutelsat, Intelsat, etc.

-

GPS, GLONASS

(Galileo)

- Biological, medical science- Physical science- Experimental Platform- Processes, procedures--

e.g. algorithms:- Anomaly detection - Data ompression

Other technologies


UserDemand

FeasibilityStudy Demo Operational

Service

User with demand but no contact to industry

Contact with ESA:

• iap.esa.int

• conferences

• ambassadors

• call for user ideas

Funding by ESA:

• 100% - ESA initiated activities in close collaboration with users / stake-holders

• 50% * - Partner / industry initiated activities in close collaboration with users / stakeholders

Funding by ESA:

• 50% - initiated by ESA or industry

ESA IAP Involvement

Supportetc.

* For Feasibility Studies only:Work carried out by universities and research institutes and justifying no further commercial interest in the final solution may be funded 100% by the Agency


“Fast Track” studies- 50 kEuro max- fast implementation (within 2 months)- short duration (3-6 months)


ESA’s IAP Programme (ARTES 20)Project Lifecycle & ESA Processes

Preliminary Definition

Full Proposal

Market Development

CommercialPhase

ESA Contract

The Project Lifecycle

The ESA Processes

ARTESApps

Office

ProgrammeRules and

ITT

OutlineProposal

ProjectExecution

TEB ContractExecution

ITT:= Invitation to Tender TEB:= Tender Evaluation Board

ESA Member StatesLetter of Support

Coordi-nation Monitoring

Co-funded Activities Competitive Tenders

National Delegates

Industry

ESA-IAP

ESA committees




Full Proposal

Market Development

CommercialPhase

ESA Contract


The ESA Processes

ARTESApps

Office

ProgrammeRules and

ITT

OutlineProposal

ProjectExecution






National Delegates

Industry

ESA-IAP

ESA committees

Outline Proposal


IAP (ARTES 20)Outline Proposal – Direct Negotiation (1)

Purpose of Outline Proposal• Check if idea and content fits with the eligibility criteria of the

ARTES 20 programme

• ESA to point out pitfalls

• Opportunity to improve the proposition and create links with value addingpartners (match making)

• Starting point for coordination with related national delegations of involvedindustries, as they have to authorise their involvement and budgets

• … before the tenderer / consortium invests more effort in the generation of a full proposal

• Input information for ESA approval processes (e.g. JCB, AC / IPC)which are required before the procurement process can be completed



General information• Tenderers can approach ESA already at an early stage of an idea

(email / telephone + sketch of the idea early discussion)

• Official element to initiate the process is submission of Outline Proposalto the IAP email account: [email protected]

• Outline Proposal templates (FS & DP) accessible underhttp://artes-apps.esa.int/artes-20-proposal-guide/direct-negotiation

• 3 basic Eligibility Criteria:

- user driven initiative involvement of representative users / customers not technology push but market demand

- aiming for sustainable services market opportunity + service provider not technology development but business development

- integration of more than one space asset(Satcom, Satnav, Earth Observation, Human Spaceflight, others)

substantiated, added value of space assets



Structure of Outline Proposal for Feasibility StudyChapter 1 – Introduction:

• Scope: «elevator pitch» concise summary including the proposed service, intended user, space assets

• Background:- background trends / issues- specific context where the service applies (current situation, focus, etc.)- challenge addressed by the service

Typically no issues / problems with this chapter

hint: give the activity a name / title



Structure of Outline Proposal for Feasibility StudyChapter 2 – User Needs and Conditions:• User description:

- presentation of the users which will be involved in the study,including information on their market position hint: representative of the targeted market domain (e.g. leader, pioneer)

- letter of interest: why they are interested and what they contribute

• Current situation:- how the users currently handle their operations- what are the challenges and shortcomings

• User needs:- essential, driving user needs (e.g. functionality, quality, price, performance)

• Other stakeholders and constraints:- major stakeholders required for successful deployment of operational services

(e.g. regulatory, economic, policy, safety, environment, public)- relevance of the stakeholders and information when they need to be involved



Structure of Outline Proposal for Feasibility StudyChapter 3 – Solution:• Service description:

- identification and preliminary description of the proposed services- identification of the targeted service value chain- planned approach to service provision- expected service provider

observations: - thoughts limited to feasibility study but not to operational service- R&D / technology driven activity- no plan for service provision (incl. service provider)

• Integrated solution:- what the space assets are and their added value is- how the solution integrates space and terrestrial assets- high level architecture

observation: good know how on one space asset, but not on others



Structure of Outline Proposal for Feasibility StudyChapter 4 – Service Assessment (1):• Added value:

- of the service for the user

observations: - technology driven argumentation- no appreciation / knowledge what the motivation of the user is

(e.g. reduction of operational efforts, cost savings, business expansion to other customers / markets, image improvement)

• Viability:- most important aspects influencing the viability of the service- critical success factors- work approach to viability analysis

observations: - tenderer is technology company (SME) with limited know-how on this subject- no business development expertise in the team- no market domain know-how in the team



Structure of Outline Proposal for Feasibility StudyChapter 4 – Service Assessment (2):• Risks:

- main risks endangering the sustainability / viability of the service

observations: - technology driven argumentation- no appreciation / knowledge of the commercial / non-technical aspects

most of the issues for service roll-out are of non-technical nature!

• Roadmap:- roadmap towards operational service provision

(what comes after the study, when is market entry required / envisaged,what partnership agreements might be required, what about fund raising, etc)

- plans for a potential follow-on demonstration project- vision and role of consortium partenrs with respect to operational service

observations: - no thoughts beyond feasibility study- no awareness about funding needs for next steps and related own capabilities



Structure of Outline Proposal for Feasibility StudyChapter 5 – Proposed Study (1):• Study logic and content:

- overview of the tasks planned (see study logic in ‘Management Requirements’)- most critical and important issues per task


New Study Logic of an IAP Feasibility Study

• Task 1 – consolidating the interest of the related stakeholders and users, analysing their problems and needs, and defining the user requirements, • Task 2 – defining the services and the service value chain, generating the specifications and architecture of the related system including design justification, identifying the critical elements

• Task 3 – proving the feasibility of critical technical and non-technical elements of the system and/or of parts thereof (Proof of Concept) in collaboration with the users• Task 4 – analysing the economic and non-economic viability of the services and the associated system

Task 1: Stakeholder/User Analysis & User Requirements Def.

Task 2: Service and System Definition

Task 3:Proof-of-Concept / Prototype

Task 4: Viability Analysis (economic & non-economic)

Task 5: Roadmap /

Recommendations &

Preparation of Demo Project

Service & System Design Review

(SSDR)

Final Review

(FR)

Negotiation Meeting /

Kick-off (KO)

User Require-ments Review

(URR)

• Task 5 – preparing the roadmap for the further implementation, defining a potential demonstration project, securing the involvement of users/stakeholders

IAP Feasibility Studies(fully funded and co-funded)




- overview of the tasks planned (see study logic in ‘Management Requirements’)- perceived most critical and important issues per task

• Consortium and partners:- introduction of consortium partners- and their capabilities / experiences for the activity

observations: - missing domain know-how, - missing business development expertise,- very good know-how on only one space asset


Ideal characteristics of involved parties:• User:

representing / leading broader markets (champion)enabling the market accesscommunicator to spread the messageopen for new solutions and systemswilling to engage as stakeholder / customer / client

• Service provider:familiar with the market (already in the market)provider of operational services (24/7)various technologies to address the specific user demand

• Industrial team:strong leadership and good managementright mix of know-how (completeness of the team)



Ideal know-how / composition of consortium (depending on the subject):

• Subject / domain specific expertise

• Business development expertise

• Earth Observation value adding services• GIS & mapping services• In-situ sensors & data collection• Satcom products & service provisioning• GNSS products and service provisioning• Data fusion & modelling• Service provisioning in the subject area





- overview of the tasks planned (see study logic in ‘Management Requirements’)- perceived most critical and important issues per task

• Consortium and partners:- introduction of consortium partners- and their capabilities / experiences for the activity

observations: - missing domain know-how, - missing business development expertise,- very good know-how on only one space asset

• Scheduling:- study duration, planning and duration of tasks

observations: - tasks with user engagement (user requirements, proof of concept)

are always underestimated in terms of effort and schedule



Structure of Outline Proposal for Feasibility StudyChapter 5 – Proposed Study (2):• Project risks:

- main risks for study implementation and execution(e.g. funding, involvement of users, missing expertise)

• Cost and price:- total cost of the study & funding requested from ESA- indication of source of co-funding- 100% funding possible only for universities and R&D institutes - … if they justify no further commercial interest in the exploitation of service

observations: - only information regarding cost, but not on ESA funding- 100% funding required by organisations other than universities and

R&D institutes, because they claim no further commercial interest

• Information on contact established with related national delegations(new aspect to be included in template)



Outline Proposal Process (general)• Generation of Outline Proposal by tenderer / consortium (about 25 pages)

• Outline Proposal submission to IAP email account: [email protected]

• Information on reception of Outline Proposal to related national delegations

• Feedback to Outline Proposal within 2 weeks start of further iteration process with IAP

• On completion of iteration process, information to related national delegationsif they are o.k. with proceeding to next step, i.e. full proposal invitation

• Invitation to tenderer / consortium to submit a full proposal

• Formal ESA approval processes with ESA Committees (handled by IAP)

• Offer to check of draft full proposal by IAP for major non-compliancesbefore official submission of full proposal




Full Proposal

Market Development

CommercialPhase

ESA Contract


The ESA Processes

ARTESApps

Office

ProgrammeRules and

ITT

OutlineProposal

ProjectExecution






National Delegates

Industry

ESA-IAP

ESA committees

Full Proposal


IAP (ARTES 20)Full Proposal – Direct Negotiation (1)

General information• Full Proposal required as input for formal evaluation by ESA Tender

Evaluation Board (TEB)

• Full Proposal will become part of the contract describing the workto be carried out by the contractor / consortium

• Applicable documentation available on ESA’s Electronic Tender SystemEMITS under http://emits.esa.int

• AO/1-6124/09/NL/US:ARTES 20 “Integrated Applications Promotion (IAP) Programme -Feasibility Studies/Demonstration Projects – CALL FOR PROPOSALS”

• ‘Special Conditions of Tender’ (SCT) regulate content of Full Proposal,‘Management Requirements’ provide information on study execution

• Regular duration of a Feasibility Study = 9 months

• Maximum cost envelope of a Feasibility Study = 500 kEuro related ESA funding 50% (except universities / R&D institutes 100%,

their involvement shall not exceed 50% of total cost)



Evaluation Criteria1. Compliance with the ARTES 20 Programme Objectives:

- user driven initiative- preparing for sustainable operational services- value of using multiple space assets

2. Suitability of the proposed study logic vs. project objectives, Quality and completeness of technical proposal

3. Company experience and competence, Completeness of team in all areas required for proposed programme of work, Calibre of key personnel, Adequacy of facilities

4. Adequacy of management (incl. completeness of work package descriptions), Planning and costing (incl. completeness of cost data), Assessment of financial risk versus company resources,Value for money

5. Compliance with contract conditions and other tender conditions



Structure of Full Proposal (general)A) Cover Letter:

• General paragraph introducing the proposed activity• Completed Tables “Bidder’s Information and Statements”

(reference tables in Annex 2 of the SCT):- Table i) – Bidding Team and Price Breakdown Information- Table ii) – Geographical Distribution within bidding consortium- Table iii) – Contact Details, Representatives

• Completed and signed forms and statement(s)(reference forms in Annex 3 of the SCT):- Form A – Declarations on Key Acceptance Factors - Form B – Declarations on Compliances

• Letter(s) of support from relevant National Delegation(s)

Start coordination process with National Delegations as soon as possible,as Delegations have different approval processes (can last up to 2 months)[contact information: http://artes-apps.esa.int/national-delegations]

Delegations require a rather mature proposal to take decisions



Structure of Full Proposal for Feasibility StudiesB) Executive Summary (max. 3 pages):

• objective(s) of the feasibility study,• context and background information, • overview of the involved users and their interest / involvement,• overview of the users perspective, their operational scenarios and needs,• Short presentation of the intended solution (services and system),• Space assets proposed for integration,• Expected added-value brought to the users,• Strategic roadmap including information on potential follow-on demo project, • Initial information on the major economic and non-economic elements

impacting the viability, • Plans for organisation and execution of the feasibility study

All information available from the Outline Proposal



Structure of Full Proposal for Feasibility StudiesC) Technical Proposal (1):C.1 Study objective and backgroundC.2 Compliance with ARTES 20 Programme Objectives

• User driven initiative:- relevanct general stakeholder and user community- involved users, major needs, interest, and involvement- representativeness of users for sustainable business case- user letter(s) of interest / commitments

• Preparing for sustainable operational services:- targeted solution (proposed services and integrated system),

and their expected added value for the users / customers- consortium motivation and ideas regarding the future service provider,

vision regarding position and role of consortium partners for operational- intention and capabilities of consortium partners for potential demo project

• Value of using multiple space assets:- space assets envisaged for integration, shortlist of relevant technologies- expected added value in proposed applications / services above other technologies

Most information available from the Outline Proposal Information of C.2 relevant for Evaluation Criterion 1



Structure of Full Proposal for Feasibility StudiesC) Technical Proposal (2):C.3 Study Logic:

- Study logic and flow chart - Study logic proposed by ESA, but other study logic can be proposed

If information on specific tasks exists, this task can be skipped,but evidence needs to be provided in the proposal

Task 1: Stakeholder/User Analysis & User Requirements Def.


Task 3:Proof-of-Concept / Prototype

Task 4: Viability Analysis (economic & non-economic)

Task 5: Roadmap /

Recommendations &

Preparation of Demo Project

Service & System Design Review

(SSDR)

Final Review

(FR)

Negotiation Meeting /

Kick-off (KO)

User Require-ments Review

(URR)



Structure of Full Proposal for Feasibility StudiesC) Technical Proposal (3):C.4 Study Tasks:

For each study task the following information has to be provided• the starting point for the work to be done

(e.g. existing contacts / partnerships, existing services, existing technologies, existing experience / know-how, existing business plan)

• the planned outcome(s) / target(s) of the individual tasks(e.g. which questions need to be answered at the end of a task that will help to take an informed decision on the further implementation of the targeted application / service and the related investments)

• the critical elements of each task that will be subject for investigation(e.g. specific unproven technologies, trade off of business models, partnership agreements, buy in of users / customers, specific regulatory situation)

• the work, methodology and approach to reach the planned outcomes / results(e.g. how to interact with the users in task 1, how to define services / technical solution in task 2, how to involve the users in task 3, how to elaborate the business case / model in task 4, how to secure partner involvement for follow-on activities in task 5)

• planned interactions with user community in each task



Structure of Full Proposal for Feasibility StudiesC) Technical Proposal (4):

C.5 Potential Problem Areas- main problem(s) or problem area(s) likely to be encountered in

performing the feasibility study (insufficient capacity, loss of partner / key person, missing know-how, time criticality / delays, dependency on other aspects, etc.)

- potential solutions / mitigation measures

C.6 Opportunity to access Satcom Capacity / Services at preferential conditions(SES Astra, Avanti Communications)- reference: artes-apps.esa.int/satellite_capacity- Information in proposal if tenderer intends to make use of this ESA offer

Information of C.3 – C.5 relevant for Evaluation Criterion 2 Most problems with incomplete information on C.3 «Study Tasks»

(especially ‘starting point’, ‘planned outcome’, ‘critical elements’)



Structure of Full Proposal (general)D) Management and Administrative Proposal (1):

D.1 Description and Background Experience of the Company(ies)- Organisational structure including key company details such as ownership, turnover,

number of employees, business lines, etc. - Relevant experience for the planned work, especially on technologies subject for

integration, application domain know-how, service provisioning, business development

- Summary description of results of previous relevant ESA activities where the company(ies) have been involved

D.2 Organisation and Management of the Activity- Study team and structure (organogram)- Lines of communication and reporting, including involved users and ESA- rationale for the proposed industrial organisation, especially with view to the

targeted future service provisioning- involvement of potential service provider strongly recommended- management plans, policies and procedures



Structure of Full Proposal (general)D) Management and Administrative Proposal (2):

D.3 Facilities- NB: mainly relevant if ‘Proof of Concept’ is foreseen as study task- facilities may include, as applicable, hardware, software, manufacturing equipment,

test equipment, production and integration lines, service centres, as well as infrastructures hosted by the involved users/stakeholders

- access to space assets (e.g. EO products / imagery, Satcom services, Satnav services) and information resources (such as libraries, databases, etc.)

D.4 Key Personnel- Key persons, i.e. study manager and work package managers- Request for key person with relevant business development expertise- Per key person:

. curriculum vitae, relevant work experience, current job and responsibilities,position in the tenderer's organisation, assignment to study tasks

. average percentage of the total working time

. man-hours assigned to Work Packages

D.5 Travel and Subsistence Plan- Exhibit B of its PSS A2 form of the prime and its subcontractors



Structure of Full Proposal (general)E) Implementation Proposal:

E.1 List Of Items To Be Produced, To Be Delivered- Documentation: as defined in ‘Management Requirements’- Hardware (to be procured or produced): ownership of hardware below 10 kEuro is

with the contractor, ownership of hardware above 10 kEuro typically left to the contractor when completing the contract (condition: utilisation for purposes connected with the objectives of the contract)

- Software: in feasibility studies not expected as deliverable

E.2 Work Breakdown Structure and Work Package Descriptions- Work Breakdown Structure (WBS): for feasibility studies a WBS on the first level is

considered sufficient including a separate Work Package on ‘Study Management’- Work Package Description (WPD): utilising PSS-A20 form as available on EMITS

under “Reference Documentation” “Administrative Documents” PSS Forms

E.3 Planning- Proposed schedule and milestones (typical duration of 9 months), incl. planning

assumptions, e.g. envisaged study start date, holidays, etc.- Bar chart incl. work packages, meetings (e.g. user workshop), review milestones



Structure of Full Proposal (general)F) Financial Proposal / Cost Price Data (1):

F.1 PSS Forms- PSS A1, PSS A2 including Exhibit A (other direct cost elements) and Exhibit B (travel

plan and cost detail), PSS A8PSS forms are available on EMITS under “Reference Documentation” “Administrative Documents” PSS Forms.

- PSS forms shall be completed and signed by Prime and each Subcontractor,including the share to be funded by the tenderer

F.2 Funding Principles and Source of Company Contribution- Agency contribution is 50%, except for universities and R&D institutes justifying no

further commercial interest in the exploitation of the service / product- Company contribution: source of the company contribution shall be explicitly

stated, can be private and/or public sector direct or indirect, in cash or in kind, co-financing; can be treated as loss against contract or may be contributed by Third Party

- For recently founded companies, financial information & capabilities to be presented

F.3 Statement of Profit- In co-funded activities, no profit is allowed to be included in the price



Structure of Full Proposal (general)F) Financial Proposal / Cost Price Data (2):

F.4 Conversion rates- Proposals must be presented in EURO, and conversation rate to be stated:

base exchange rate published on EMITS for the month of the base economic conditions required in the tender under "Reference Documentation" "Administrative Documents" “National Price and Salary Statistics – Annual Publications“ section 3 Exchange Rates

F.5 Type of Price = firm fixed price

F.6 Quotations free of taxes and customs duties

F.7 Milestone Payments Plan- Milestone Payment Plan (MPP), broken down per subcontractor (if applicable),

in the form shown in the relevant appendix of the Draft Contract

Information of E – F relevant for Evaluation Criterion 4



Structure of Full Proposal (general)G) Contractual Proposal (1):G.1 Compliance with management requirements

- Explicit statement that Management Requirements in Appendix 3 to draft contract (the draft contract is presented in Appendix 2 to Call for Proposals) will be met

- Any reservation must be clearly identified

G.2 Compliance with contract conditions- Explicit statement that the contract conditions have been read, are understood and

accepted, and that any sales conditions do not apply - Any reservation / modifications must be clearly identified, and reasoning provided

G.3 Insurance waiver - Either: waiver of subrogation rights from the contractor’s insurance company

(see Clause 18.1.3 of the GCC)- Or: hold harmless agreement between the parties in accordance with Clause 18.1.6

of the ESA GCC (NB: easier to obtain)

G.4 Statement relating to Export/Import licences/authorisations- State any particular conditions related to Export/Import licences/authorisations and

related documentation

Information of G relevant for Evaluation Criterion 5


IAP (ARTES 20)Full Proposal – Open Competition

Preparation of Full Proposal for competitive ITTs• Competitive ITTs are prepared and initiated by ESA-IAP in collaboration with

dedicated user communities• Such ITTs are 100% funded by ESA• These initiatives are first announced as “Intended Invitations to Tender” (IITT)

on EMITS (a few weeks in advance of ITT publication)• The preparation of proposal is regulated by a dedicated set of tender

documents, i.e. Cover letter, Statement of Work, Special Conditions of Tender, Draft Contract

• Full Proposal content is similar to Full Proposal for studies in Direct Negotiation • During the opening period (10-12 weeks), ESA is not allowed to interact with

any interested tenderer (to observe the nature of a competitive tender)• … but interaction with ESA is possible before publication of ITT

• Current opportunities (feasibility studies) in preparation:- “Space Applications for Future Cities” in preparation (July 2014)- “Space Applications supported by Open Data and Crowdsourcing”

in preparation (August 2014)- “Space based Services for Railway Signaling” (Q3 / 2014)


Transition of feasibility study to demo project

• During execution of the Feasibility Study, information for a potential follow-on demonstration project will be collected and aligned with inputs requiredfor the Demonstration Project

• … via online tool «Outline Proposal Tool for Demo Projects» as accessible under http://telecom.esa.int/opdt/artesapps/artes20demo (registration on website telecom.esa.int required to get access)

• Goal: Decision at Final Review / Final Presentation of Study to proceed with preparation of Full Proposal for Demonstration Project… in order to reduce idle time between feasibility study and demo project

IAP Feasibility StudiesTransition feasibility study demo project


Outline Proposal Toolfor Demo Projects

Tool accessible under http://telecom.esa.int/opdt/artesapps/artes20demo Outputs of Feasibility Study shall be adequate to fill modules 1-8aModules 8b-11 are specific for content and execution of a potential follow-on demonstration project

This tool has been created as interactive learning tool, including explanations, examples, and worksheets

IAP Demonstration Projects

… and is considered useful especially for newcomersto the ARTES 20 Programme


Preparation of follow-on Demo Project

IAP Feasibility StudiesTransition feasibility study demo project

Feasibility Study Task Demo Project Outline Proposal Module Progress / Review Meeting

(first / final)Task 1: User Requirements

Module 2: Major Project StakeholdersModule 7: User Requirements

URR / FR


Module 3: Service Value ChainModule 8a: System/Service Architecture

SSDR / FR

Task 4: Viability Analysis

Module 5: Market AnalysisModule 4: Competitive PositioningModule 1: System/Service OpportunityModule 6: Financial Indicators

URR / FRURR / FR

SSDR / FRSSDR / FR

Task 5: Roadmap / Recommendations

Module 8b: System/Service ArchitectureModule 9: Implementation ApproachModule 10: Pilot Service Module 11: Finance, Management &

Administrative (FMA)

FR


If you do not know what to do, contact us!

Norbert HübnerHead of Feasibility Studies SectionDepartment of Integrated and Telecommunications-related Applications

Tel: +33 (0)71 565 4199Email: [email protected]

URL: http://artes-apps.esa.int http://telecom.esa.int

Contact

IAP How to write a proposal · 2014-10-10 · - Broadband: SES Astra, Inmarsat, Avanti, Eutelsat,...

Documents

Transcript of IAP How to write a proposal · 2014-10-10 · - Broadband: SES Astra, Inmarsat, Avanti, Eutelsat,...