Attachment III - STAR Evaluation Criteria (SSTI 4).docx
DOCX document 112 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FA9453-21-S-0001-Call015 - Space Strategic Technology Institute (SSTI) IV - Advanced Remote Sensing Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- SSTI4_Call015
About this file
This document contains the Space Technology Advanced Research (STAR) Evaluation Criteria for a federal contract opportunity. The criteria outline the evaluation factors that will be used to assess proposals, including problem definition, product summary, relevance to AFRL needs, degree of innovation, scientific and engineering viability, project plan, value/cost benefit to the Air Force, and proposal quality. The key objectives are to address space science and technology challenges, advance space domain capabilities, and develop testbeds, simulations, demonstrations, and prototypes that can transition to higher technology readiness levels. The opportunity is being offered through the Space Strategic Technology Institutes (SSTIs) program, with at least two cooperative agreements expected to be awarded by the United States Space Force.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SSTI IV QA Session 18-Dec-2024.pdf | ||
| SSTI IV ARS STAR FISH Call 015 r1.docx | DOCX document | |
| SSTI 4 ANSWERS 4 DEC 2024.pdf | ||
| SSTI IV ARS - STAR-FISH Call 015.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment I - Statement of Objectives.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment IV - Deliverables and Reporting Checklist (SSTI 4).docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment II - STAR FISH White Paper Template Call 015.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Space Technology Advanced Research (STAR) Evaluation Criteria Attachment III
NOT SELECTABLE SELECTABLE, LOW SELECTABLE, HIGH HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
PROBLEM DEFINITION
PROBLEM BEING SOLVED
Undefined problem scope.
Somewhat defined problem scope.
Adequately defined problem scope.
Very well defined problem scope.
| weight 8.0% |
| PRODUCT SUMMARY |
Fails to describe intended solution.
Partly describes intended solution.
Adequately describes intended solution.
Clearly and concisely describes intended solution.
© 2011 - 2019 Valid Evaluation, Inc. All rights reserved.
RELEVANCE TO AFRL PROBLEM ALIGNMENT Not aligned with any of the Topic Areas. Somewhat aligned with at least 1 of the
Aligned with at least 1 of the Topic Areas. Perfectly aligned with at least 1 of the
NEEDS
PROBLEM MAGNITUDE Currently fielded solutions deliver satisfactory Air Force outcomes.
OPERATIONAL IMPACT If successful, no improvement vs. existing technological approaches.
SCALE A fully deployed, mature solution could have only Squadron-level impact.
Topic Areas.
Currently fielded solutions deliver mostly satisfactory Air Force outcomes.
If successful, slight improvement vs. existing technological approaches.
A fully deployed, mature solution could have Wing-level impact.
Currently fielded solutions deliver mostly unsatisfactory Air Force outcomes.
If successful, significant improvement vs. existing technological approaches.
A fully deployed, mature solution could have MAJCOM-level impact.
Topic Areas.
Currently fielded solutions deliver completely unsatisfactory Air Force outcomes.
If successful, radical improvement vs. existing technological approaches.
A fully deployed, mature solution could have impact across the Air Force and potentially DoD.
weight 27.0% DEGREE OF INNOVATION No departure from existing technological approaches.
Slight departure from existing technological approaches.
Significant departure from existing technological approaches.
Radical departure from existing technological approaches.
SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING VIABILITY
SCIENTIFIC FEASIBILITY
| No scientific basis for presented approach. |
| Incomplete scientific basis for presented approach. |
| Credible scientific basis for presented approach. |
| Convincing scientific basis for presented approach. |
| ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES |
| Relies on nonexistent or unavailable technology. |
| Relies on emerging, cutting edge technology. |
Relies on proven technologies.
Relies on Air Force-fielded technologies.
ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL APPROACHES
No examination of alternatives.
Partially refutes alternatives.
Adequately refutes alternatives.
Persuasively refutes alternatives.
weight 27.0%
TECHNICAL PERSONNEL
Incapable of progress. Team missing essential areas of expertise.
| Capable of limited progress. Team recognizes gaps in expertise, but presents no plan to address needs. |
| Capable of significant progress. Team recognizes gaps in expertise and presents specific plan to address needs. |
| Highly capable. Team with excellent composition. No near-term gaps in expertise. |
Space Technology Advanced Research (STAR) Evaluation Criteria
NOT SELECTABLE SELECTABLE, LOW SELECTABLE, HIGH HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
PROJECT PLAN
PROJECT SCHEDULE Unclear or non-credible project milestones, or timing.
Fairly clear, credible project milestones and timing. Mostly appropriate level of detail.
Mostly clear, credible project milestones and timing. Appropriate level of detail.
Completely clear, credible project milestones and timing. Appropriate level of detail.
ROM COST ESTIMATE Incomplete cost estimates. Unrealistic cost estimates. Credible cost estimates. Convincing cost estimates.
HYPOTHESIS, TESTING, MEASUREMENT
No hypothesis presented, OR presented hypothesis is unreasonable.
This project requires major changes to yield an empirically valid and reliable hypothesis test.
With minor adjustments, this project could yield an empirically valid and reliable hypothesis test.
As presented, this project will yield an empirically valid and reliable hypothesis test.
weight 27.0% APPROPRIATENESS OF
MEASUREMENT
Fails to measure indicators of impact. Poor measurement of indicators of impact.
Adequate measurement of indicators of impact.
Highly appropriate measurement of indicators of impact.
VALUE / COST
BENEFIT TO AIR FORCE
Expected pay-off does not out-weigh proposed cost.
Expected pay-off may out-weigh proposed cost.
Expected pay-off out-weighs proposed cost.
Expected pay-off substantially out-weighs proposed cost.
| weight 8.0% |
| FUNDING AVAILABILITY |
| ROM exceeds available budget. No partner contributions identified. |
| ROM exceeds available budget. |
Identified partner contributions to address shortfall.
ROM cost is within available budget.
ROM Cost is well within available budget.
PROPOSAL QUALITY
QUALITY OF PROSE
Poorly written. Very difficult to impossible to follow argument. Several spelling or grammar errors.
Moderately written. Sometimes difficult to follow argument. A few spelling / grammar errors.
Effectively written. Convincing, easy to follow argument. No spelling or grammar errors.
Clearly and persuasively written. Compelling arguments. No spelling or grammar errors.
weight 3.0% DATA QUALITY & ATTRIBUTION
Poorly supported by data. Little to no data attribution.
Partially supported by data. Some data attribution.
Credibly supported by data. Adequate data attribution.
Persuasively supported by meaningful data. Comprehensive data attribution.
Space Technology Advanced Research (STAR) Criteria Explained Dimension Sub-dimension Application Prompt
| PROBLEM DEFINITION | |
| Problem Being Solved | What is the operational problem being solved for the Air Force with this innovation? Clearly define the problem you address. |
Demonstrate the depth of your understanding of the problem's components and stakeholders.
weight 8%
| Write a clear, concise description of your product or solution. Without getting into all of the details, explain what your product is | |
| Product Summary | and how it addresses the problem you detailed above. The reviewer should have a very clear sense of the solution you are proposing after reading this section, and should be excited to learn more in the rest of your white paper. |
RELEVANCE TO AFRL NEEDS
Problem Alignment How well does your Problem Statement map to our published Topic Areas? Argue the problem you've chosen is a perfect fit with the problems for this Challenge.
Problem Magnitude Look specifically at the problem to which this solution maps. Is this a big problem today? How "painful" is today's status quo for the Air Force? Make your best case that the problem(s) you solve are important for the Air Force.
Operational Impact Looking only at the airmen who will be impacted by your solution, argue that their jobs or lives will be significantly improved if your solution is adopted. What is the impact of your solution for an airman vs. today's solutions?
Scale Look into the future to a time when your solution is both technically mature and fully "transitioned" (actively in use by airmen.) Describe the scale of your impact within the context of the Air Force.
| weight 27% | Degree of Innovation | Describe what's innovative about your approach? How big a departure from existing clinical / technical approaches is your solution? |
| SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING VIABILITY |
Scientific Feasibility Is the science behind the solution sound? Convince readers who don't have deep expertise in your field that your innovation is built atop sound scientific and engineering principles. Point to the foundational and proven technologies that you rely on to deliver your solution.
weight 27.0%
| Enabling Technologies |
| Do the required enabling technologies introduce added risk? Using mature or proven underlying technologies and techniques helps to lower technical risk. |
| Alternative Technical Approaches |
| Convince a skeptical audience that yours is the best from a technical perspective. Your case is strongest when you convincingly refute the alternatives. |
Technical Personnel Briefly list and describe your core scientific and technical team. Do you have the people and technical capabilities you need to successfully complete your proposed project? If not, convince the reader you have a credible recruiting plan and can fill personnel gaps.
| PROJECT PLAN | Project schedule | Provide a schedule for your proposed project. Your projected milestones should be realistic and thoughtful. |
| ROM Cost Estimate | Provide a rough order of magnitude (ROM) budget for your proposed project. Your projected costs should be realistic and thoughtful. |
Hypothesis, Testing, Measurement weight 27.0% Appropriateness of Measurement
Succinctly and convincingly outline the "what" your project will prove, and "how" you will go about proving it.
List the key performance indicators (KPIs) that are most appropriate to measure your progress with this project. Prove these KPIs are the most appropriate possible measurements of success for a project such as this one.
| VALUE / COST | |
| Benefit to Air Force | Describe how the Air Force will benefit if you are successful and make the case that your approach represents a best value |
solution (expected pay-off out-weighs the cost).
weight 8.0%
| If your proposal is of sufficiently high quality, our team will have to determine if it can realistically be funded with our available | |
| Funding Availability | budget. If your proposal is on the high end of the budget guidelines, please do your best to identify partners from whom additional funding may be available. |
PROPOSAL QUALITY
Quality of prose Prove you write clearly and argue convincingly.
weight 3.0% Data quality & attribution Support your arguments with relevant, properly attributed data to enhance your credibility.
Page 1 of 1 © 2011 - 2019 Valid Evaluation, Inc. All rights reserved.
image5.png image6.png image7.png image8.png image9.png image10.png image2.png image3.png image4.png image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .