chore: reorganize repo around planning docs and tender materials

docs/Tenders/BID_RULES_182213.md

@@ -0,0 +1,386 @@
+# Bid Rules for ESA Tender 182213
+
+## Purpose
+
+This note converts the lessons from prior SESAR tender feedback into a practical checklist for bidding ESA tender `182213`, whose objective is to characterise and assess risks from subsonic space debris re-entry fragments crossing airspace.
+
+The core rule is simple:
+
+**Do not submit a broad "interesting concept" proposal. Submit a measurable, validation-led, operationally grounded proposal with explicit impact logic, clear task ownership, and a direct line from physics to airspace decision support.**
+
+---
+
+## Why 182213 Fits SpaceCom
+
+Tender `182213` is unusually well aligned with the strongest part of the SpaceCom plan:
+
+- uncontrolled re-entry risk
+- airspace hazard from debris
+- aircraft vulnerability
+- operational disruption and conservative closures
+- the need to improve decision-making under uncertainty
+
+This matches the core SpaceCom positioning in `docs/MASTER_PLAN.md`:
+
+- space-domain prediction plus aviation-domain decision support
+- FIR intersection analysis
+- hazard corridors
+- NOTAM drafting support
+- multi-ANSP coordination
+
+The proposal should therefore be framed as:
+
+**an operational risk-assessment and decision-support capability for uncontrolled re-entry debris in airspace, not merely an orbital analysis tool**
+
+---
+
+## Lessons from Past ESRs
+
+## 1. Objectives must be measurable
+
+Past proposals were repeatedly marked down for objectives that were broad, brief, or hard to verify.
+
+Do:
+
+- define 3 to 5 concrete objectives
+- attach each objective to an observable output
+- state how success will be measured at project end
+
+Do not:
+
+- use vague wording like "improve awareness", "support resilience", or "enable better decisions" without measurement logic
+
+For 182213, every objective should have:
+
+- a technical metric
+- an operational metric
+- a validation method
+
+Example pattern:
+
+- improve prediction of subsonic fragment airspace exposure
+- quantify uncertainty bounds for aircraft encounter risk
+- reduce unnecessary airspace restriction area and/or duration versus conservative baseline methods
+
+---
+
+## 2. KPIs and performance logic must appear early
+
+The strongest prior bid, SCAN, was praised for quantitative KPI-based validation. The weaker bids were criticised for qualitative impact claims without traceable performance logic.
+
+For 182213, include a KPI table in the first substantive section, not as an afterthought.
+
+Minimum KPI families:
+
+- hazard prediction accuracy
+- uncertainty calibration
+- aircraft exposure estimation accuracy
+- operational usefulness for ANSP decision-making
+- reduction in unnecessary conservatism
+- timeliness of updates during active events
+
+Suggested KPI examples:
+
+- error in predicted affected airspace footprint versus reconstructed event outcome
+- calibration of risk bands against back-tested scenarios
+- false positive and false negative rates for affected airspace warnings
+- percentage reduction in precautionary closure area relative to current conservative practice
+- time from updated re-entry assessment to updated operational recommendation
+
+---
+
+## 3. Methodology must be technically specific
+
+Previous weaker bids were penalised when methods, candidate models, datasets, and technical assumptions were under-specified.
+
+For 182213, specify:
+
+- breakup and fragment descent modelling approach
+- treatment of subsonic fragment regimes
+- atmospheric assumptions and data sources
+- aircraft vulnerability / encounter model
+- air traffic density or exposure model
+- uncertainty propagation method
+- validation dataset strategy
+- comparison baseline
+
+The evaluators should never have to guess:
+
+- which models you will test
+- which data you will use
+- how uncertainty is handled
+- what the benchmark is
+
+If multiple methods are possible, state the decision logic up front:
+
+- baseline method
+- advanced method
+- selection criteria
+
+---
+
+## 4. Validation must be concrete, not deferred
+
+One repeated weakness in earlier bids was saying that validation detail would be defined later.
+
+For 182213, validation must already be visible in the bid.
+
+State:
+
+- the scenarios to be tested
+- the data sources for those scenarios
+- the validation environment
+- the comparison cases
+- the acceptance criteria
+
+Recommended validation structure:
+
+1. Historical case back-testing
+2. Monte Carlo scenario testing
+3. Operational replay with airspace and flight-density overlays
+4. Expert review with aviation stakeholders
+
+If possible, include a headline validation case:
+
+- Long March 5B / Spanish airspace closure style scenario
+
+That immediately shows operational relevance and mirrors the tender text.
+
+---
+
+## 5. Trace every claim to operational impact
+
+Past bids lost marks when impact was credible but too qualitative.
+
+For 182213, every technical output should map to an operational outcome:
+
+- fragment model improvement -> better hazard corridor definition
+- aircraft encounter modelling -> clearer risk thresholds for operators
+- uncertainty modelling -> more defensible airspace restrictions
+- event updates -> better timing of restrictions and release decisions
+
+The impact section should explicitly answer:
+
+- what will change for ANSPs
+- what will change for airlines
+- what will change for regulators
+- what will change for re-entry risk assessment practice
+
+Do not leave impact at the level of "better safety awareness".
+
+Use impact language such as:
+
+- fewer unnecessary closures
+- more targeted restrictions
+- faster updates under uncertainty
+- more defensible criteria for action
+- stronger basis for future regulatory guidance
+
+---
+
+## 6. Show the path to standards, regulation, and adoption
+
+Winning bids are not just technically strong; they show where the outputs go next.
+
+For 182213, spell out the route from project outputs to:
+
+- ESA / space safety use
+- aviation authority acceptance
+- ANSP procedures
+- future standardisation and guidance material
+
+Potential channels to mention, if justified in the consortium and work plan:
+
+- ICAO-related airspace risk handling
+- EASA / national authority guidance
+- EUROCONTROL / ANSP operational procedures
+- future ATM / STM coordination frameworks
+
+The key is not to overclaim, but to show a credible uptake path.
+
+---
+
+## 7. Be explicit about automation, human decision support, and cybersecurity
+
+Past proposals were criticised when automation levels or cybersecurity handling were unclear.
+
+For 182213:
+
+- state clearly whether the output is advisory decision support, not automated airspace command
+- define the human decision-maker in the loop
+- state how integrity, traceability, and update provenance are maintained
+- describe cybersecurity proportionately if software or data exchange are in scope
+
+Useful framing:
+
+- the system supports, but does not replace, authorised aviation decision-makers
+- all operational recommendations are traceable to model version, inputs, and timestamped assumptions
+
+---
+
+## 8. Work packages must be concrete at task level
+
+Several past bids were penalised for vague WPs, missing sub-tasks, unclear milestones, and unclear partner roles.
+
+For 182213, each WP should show:
+
+- purpose
+- tasks
+- lead
+- contributors
+- outputs
+- milestone(s)
+- acceptance criteria
+
+No partner should appear as a name in the consortium without a visible task-level role.
+
+Minimum good structure:
+
+- WP1 Project management and quality assurance
+- WP2 Requirements, scenarios, and operational criteria
+- WP3 Physics and fragment risk modelling
+- WP4 Aircraft vulnerability and airspace exposure modelling
+- WP5 Integrated platform / demonstrator and validation
+- WP6 Exploitation, standards, and regulatory uptake
+
+If the tender scope is smaller, compress the WPs but keep the same traceability.
+
+---
+
+## 9. Milestones must align with the handbook and the internal logic
+
+Earlier feedback repeatedly picked up avoidable issues:
+
+- inconsistent durations
+- missing maturity gate
+- deliverables landing after the logical close of technical work
+- unclear PM tables
+
+Before submission, run a consistency check on:
+
+- project duration
+- WP dates
+- milestone dates
+- deliverable dates
+- PM totals
+- partner PM subtotals
+- budget tables versus narrative tables
+
+This is not cosmetic. Evaluators treat these errors as evidence that delivery control may be weak.
+
+---
+
+## 10. Exploitation must be concrete, not generic
+
+Weak bids often described dissemination reasonably well but exploitation too vaguely.
+
+For 182213, separate these clearly:
+
+- communication: who hears about the project
+- dissemination: who receives results
+- exploitation: who uses what, how, and why
+
+Exploitation should identify:
+
+- primary users
+- adoption pathway
+- productisation or service pathway
+- next-phase funding or procurement path
+- what SkyNav will own or commercialise after the project
+
+For SpaceCom, exploitation should be tied to:
+
+- aviation safety decision support for re-entry events
+- ANSP-facing operational tooling
+- integration into broader SpaceCom platform modules
+- future institutional and commercial deployments
+
+---
+
+## 11. The bid should feel smaller, sharper, and more provable than the broad SESAR bids
+
+The prior feedback suggests a recurring risk: trying to sound system-level and strategic without enough measurable technical substance.
+
+For 182213, the better move is:
+
+- narrower scope
+- sharper technical method
+- stronger validation
+- clearer operational end user
+- simpler consortium story
+
+This tender appears to reward a focused, technically credible, high-clarity proposal more than a sprawling programme narrative.
+
+That should favour an SME-led or SME-prominent bid if the scope is disciplined.
+
+---
+
+## Recommended Proposal Spine for 182213
+
+## One-sentence positioning
+
+SpaceCom will deliver a validated risk-assessment and decision-support capability for subsonic re-entry debris in airspace, combining fragment modelling, aircraft exposure assessment, and operational airspace impact logic to support safer and less conservative response decisions.
+
+## Core objectives
+
+- characterise subsonic fragment behaviour after destructive re-entry
+- quantify aircraft exposure and vulnerability to subsonic debris in airspace
+- integrate airspace and traffic-density context into re-entry debris risk assessment
+- validate operationally useful decision criteria for airspace restrictions and release
+- produce a pathway toward institutional adoption and future standardisation
+
+## Core outputs
+
+- fragment risk model
+- aircraft encounter / vulnerability model
+- integrated risk engine
+- operational decision criteria
+- validation report using historical and synthetic scenarios
+- regulator / operator uptake package
+
+---
+
+## Red Flags to Avoid
+
+- objectives that cannot be measured
+- qualitative impact claims without KPIs
+- saying validation will be defined later
+- vague references to AI or analytics without specific methods
+- unclear partner roles
+- weak or generic exploitation language
+- no explicit operational decision-maker or user
+- no cyber / integrity treatment if software exchange is involved
+- no benchmark against current conservative practice
+
+---
+
+## Submission Gate Checklist
+
+- [ ] Objectives are specific, measurable, and testable
+- [ ] Each objective has at least one KPI and one validation method
+- [ ] Methodology names the models, datasets, assumptions, and baselines
+- [ ] Validation cases are already defined in the proposal
+- [ ] Impact is quantified wherever possible
+- [ ] SESAR-style performance logic is mirrored even if this is not a SESAR call
+- [ ] Operational user and decision context are explicit
+- [ ] Standards / regulatory uptake path is credible and specific
+- [ ] Automation and human-in-the-loop position are explicit
+- [ ] Cybersecurity / integrity handling is addressed if relevant
+- [ ] WPs include task-level detail and named partner roles
+- [ ] Milestones, deliverables, PMs, and budget are internally consistent
+- [ ] Exploitation is concrete and linked to SpaceCom's roadmap
+
+---
+
+## Bottom Line
+
+The lesson from the past tenders is not that the concepts were weak.
+
+The lesson is that evaluators rewarded proposals that were:
+
+- more measurable
+- more technically explicit
+- more validation-led
+- more traceable from task to output to KPI to impact
+
+For tender `182213`, SpaceCom has a strong thematic fit. The decisive factor will be whether the bid reads like a precise operational science-and-software programme with defensible metrics, rather than a broad strategic vision.

docs/Tenders/ESA_182213_PROPOSAL_DRAFT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,662 @@
+# ESA Tender 182213 Proposal Draft
+
+## 1. Proposal Overview
+
+**Project Title:** SpaceCom AIRSAFE
+
+**Acronym:** AIRSAFE
+
+**Call / Topic:** ESA Tender 182213 - Characterisation and assessment of risks due to subsonic space debris re-entry fragments crossing airspace
+
+**Duration:** 24 months
+
+**Coordinator:** SkyNav Europe
+
+**Consortium Partners:** Proposed prime-led consortium with SkyNav Europe as coordinator and software owner and DLR as the preferred technical and validation partner. Additional specialist support to be added only where needed for aircraft vulnerability or debris / re-entry modelling depth.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Strategic Framing
+
+### Problem Statement
+
+Europe is entering an era in which uncontrolled satellite and launch-vehicle re-entries are no longer rare exceptions but an increasingly frequent operational hazard. Existing assessment methods are still oriented toward ground casualty or broad debris-footprint questions and remain weak in one of the most operationally consequential areas: the risk posed to aircraft and managed airspace by subsonic debris fragments after the main break-up phase.
+
+The result is a dangerous decision gap. Air navigation stakeholders are forced to choose between under-reaction and overly conservative closure under conditions of limited evidence, uncertain fragment behaviour, incomplete aircraft-vulnerability logic, and poorly integrated air-traffic exposure data. The 2022 Spanish airspace closure during the Long March 5B re-entry is the clearest example of this gap: a major network-level decision taken under time pressure with limited criteria, uncertain fragment risk, and substantial economic consequence.
+
+Tender 182213 addresses exactly this gap. The activity is not simply about improving re-entry physics in isolation. It is about making fragment risk credible enough, operationally interpretable enough, and airspace-aware enough to support better aviation decisions.
+
+### Strategic Context
+
+This proposal sits at the interface between space safety and aviation operations. That is the central strategic thesis of SpaceCom.
+
+SpaceCom has been defined as a dual-domain re-entry debris hazard analysis platform that bridges the space and aviation domains. In the space domain, it provides decay prediction, uncertainty quantification, and corridor planning. In the aviation domain, it translates those predictions into operational outputs such as hazard corridors, FIR intersection analysis, decision prompts, and draft NOTAM support.
+
+The project therefore aligns with the broader European need to connect space situational awareness with practical ATM and ANSP action. It also complements earlier SESAR and higher-airspace work without merely repeating it. Prior programmes have progressed launch, re-entry, HAO, and STM integration. The remaining unsolved operational issue is the decision-quality layer for aviation stakeholders confronting uncertain re-entry debris in active airspace.
+
+### Value Proposition
+
+This proposal fills the missing operational layer between re-entry hazard modelling and airspace action.
+
+SkyNav is uniquely positioned because it is not approaching this challenge as a generic software integrator, nor as a space-only analysis house. The SpaceCom roadmap was explicitly designed around the translation problem:
+
+- from orbital and atmospheric uncertainty to plain-language operational risk
+- from fragment and corridor physics to FIR and route impact
+- from raw Monte Carlo outputs to defensible action criteria
+- from space-domain alerts to aviation decision support
+
+The value proposition is therefore:
+
+**a validated, airspace-aware subsonic debris risk-assessment capability that helps aviation stakeholders act safely with less unnecessary conservatism**
+
+The preferred consortium design reinforces this positioning:
+
+- SkyNav owns the software, integration logic, and exploitation pathway
+- SkyNav brings demonstrated ATM, regulatory, validation-planning, and stakeholder-engagement capability from prior higher-airspace and space-transport work
+- DLR contributes technical depth and validation credibility
+
+This is the right balance for an SME-led bid: enough specialist depth to strengthen the science, while keeping the resulting capability clearly owned by SkyNav.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Objectives
+
+### Primary Objective
+
+To develop and validate an operationally usable risk-assessment framework for subsonic space debris re-entry fragments crossing airspace, combining fragment behaviour, aircraft exposure, and airspace impact logic into decision-support outputs for aviation stakeholders.
+
+### Supporting Objectives
+
+- Objective 1: Characterise the post-breakup behaviour of subsonic re-entry debris fragments relevant to aircraft encounter risk, including uncertainty bounds and scenario variability.
+- Objective 2: Develop an aircraft exposure and vulnerability assessment layer that translates debris trajectories into aviation-relevant risk metrics.
+- Objective 3: Integrate traffic-density, route structure, and managed airspace context into re-entry debris risk assessment to produce actionable airspace impact outputs.
+- Objective 4: Validate the resulting framework against historical cases, replay scenarios, and stakeholder review to demonstrate more targeted and less overly conservative decision support.
+- Objective 5: Produce a pathway for institutional use, future standardisation, and productisation within the broader SpaceCom platform.
+
+### Proposed Success Metrics
+
+- Demonstrate quantified improvement in identifying affected airspace versus a conservative baseline closure model.
+- Demonstrate traceable uncertainty ranges for fragment-aircraft encounter assessment.
+- Demonstrate operationally interpretable outputs for ANSP-style users, including affected FIRs, time windows, and graded risk bands.
+- Demonstrate a validation package suitable for future institutional review and regulatory discussion.
+
+### Placeholder KPI Table
+
+This table is intentionally provisional and should be aligned to the formal tender documentation, statement of work, and evaluation criteria once the full ESA pack is available.
+
+| KPI Area | Indicative KPI | Baseline | Target | Validation Method | Notes |
+|------|------|------|------|------|------|
+| Airspace impact accuracy | Accuracy of predicted affected airspace footprint versus replay case | TBD | TBD | Historical replay / scenario replay | Define once tender datasets are known |
+| Conservatism reduction | Reduction in precautionary closure area or duration versus conservative baseline method | TBD | TBD | Comparative scenario analysis | Must remain safety-consistent |
+| Uncertainty quality | Calibration of uncertainty bands for fragment-airspace exposure | TBD | TBD | Monte Carlo back-test / sensitivity analysis | Formal metric to be selected |
+| Aircraft exposure logic | Accuracy or usefulness of aircraft exposure ranking by airspace/time slice | TBD | TBD | Expert review + scenario replay | Depends on available traffic inputs |
+| Operational usability | Share of stakeholder review cases judged decision-useful | TBD | TBD | Structured operator review | To be defined with end-user criteria |
+| Timeliness | Time from event update to updated operational output | TBD | TBD | Demonstrator timing test | Relevant if near-real-time updates are in scope |
+| Uptake pathway | Number and quality of actionable recommendations for institutional / regulatory use | TBD | TBD | Stakeholder review and final uptake brief | May be qualitative with structured scoring |
+
+---
+
+## 4. Concept of Operations (CONOPS)
+
+### Operational Concept
+
+The proposed system operates as a decision-support layer above the fragment-risk engine.
+
+When an uncontrolled re-entry event is identified, the system ingests available object, trajectory, atmospheric, and event-state data. It then generates a probabilistic assessment of post-breakup fragment behaviour, with explicit treatment of the subsonic fragment regime identified in the tender. That output is combined with aircraft exposure and managed airspace context to produce time- and location-specific aviation risk products.
+
+These products are not intended to automate airspace closure. They are intended to support authorised aviation decision-makers with a clearer answer to the operational question:
+
+**Which airspace is credibly affected, when, with what level of confidence, and how does that compare with a conservative precautionary action boundary?**
+
+### Key Features
+
+- Real-time or near-real-time ingestion of re-entry event information
+- Subsonic fragment behaviour modelling with uncertainty propagation
+- Airspace intersection logic using FIR and route-aware geospatial layers
+- Aircraft exposure modelling using traffic-density and operational context
+- Decision-support outputs for aviation stakeholders, not raw physics alone
+- Plain-language uncertainty communication for operators and incident leads
+- Traceable update chain linking every operational recommendation to model version, assumptions, and timestamped inputs
+
+### Operational Outputs
+
+- affected FIRs and time windows
+- dynamic hazard corridors and confidence bands
+- aircraft exposure estimates by airspace/time slice
+- graded advisory thresholds
+- comparison between conservative precautionary area and refined risk-informed area
+- validation replay outputs for post-event review
+
+### Operational Impact
+
+The expected operational outcome is not the elimination of uncertainty. It is better action under uncertainty.
+
+Specifically, the project aims to enable:
+
+- safer and more defensible airspace risk decisions
+- fewer unnecessarily broad restrictions where evidence supports narrower action
+- clearer coordination between space-domain analysts and aviation stakeholders
+- a stronger basis for regulatory and procedural development in Europe
+
+---
+
+## 5. Technical Approach
+
+### Architecture
+
+The proposal uses a modular architecture aligned with the SpaceCom roadmap. The technical stack is built around a physics core, an airspace-impact layer, and an operational decision-support layer.
+
+The architecture has three main layers:
+
+- Event and data ingestion
+- Fragment and exposure analytics
+- Operational visualisation and decision-support outputs
+
+This architecture is API-driven and designed so that each analytical component can be validated independently before integration into an end-to-end demonstrator.
+
+### Core Modules
+
+#### Module 1 - Event and Context Ingestion
+
+- re-entry event ingestion
+- orbit / decay state updates
+- atmospheric and space-weather context
+- airspace and FIR boundary data
+- air traffic density and route context
+
+#### Module 2 - Fragment Risk Engine
+
+- breakup and descent scenario generation
+- subsonic fragment regime treatment
+- uncertainty propagation and Monte Carlo analysis
+- hazard corridor and confidence-band generation
+
+#### Module 3 - Aircraft Exposure and Vulnerability Layer
+
+- aircraft encounter likelihood estimation
+- aircraft vulnerability logic for debris interaction scenarios
+- mapping from fragment trajectories to aviation-relevant risk indicators
+
+#### Module 4 - Airspace Impact and Decision Layer
+
+- FIR and route intersection analysis
+- time-windowed operational impact assessment
+- graded risk outputs
+- comparative conservative-baseline analysis
+- draft operational products for aviation stakeholders
+
+#### Module 5 - Validation and Replay Toolkit
+
+- historical event back-testing
+- scenario replay
+- operator-facing demonstration views
+- post-event assessment and evidence packaging
+
+### Methodological Principles
+
+The technical method will be explicit and testable from the start of the activity.
+
+The proposal will define:
+
+- baseline and advanced fragment-modelling approaches
+- assumptions and limits for atmospheric and subsonic fragment modelling
+- uncertainty treatment and convergence logic
+- aircraft exposure modelling inputs and abstractions
+- validation baselines and comparison cases
+
+This is critical because the past tender feedback shows that evaluators penalise proposals that defer the method, the validation detail, or the KPI logic to later phases.
+
+### Innovation Elements
+
+The innovation is not merely better debris analysis in isolation. It is the integration of four elements that are currently weakly connected:
+
+- subsonic fragment behaviour after breakup
+- aircraft risk logic
+- managed-airspace context
+- operational decision products for aviation actors
+
+What is new versus current practice is the shift from broad, precautionary, often opaque airspace reactions to a more evidence-based and traceable approach that still remains conservative where the uncertainty demands it.
+
+This is also where SpaceCom is differentiated. The broader platform roadmap already includes:
+
+- Monte Carlo-based uncertainty handling
+- hazard corridors
+- FIR intersection analysis
+- NOTAM-adjacent drafting support
+- operator-oriented uncertainty communication
+
+This tender allows those concepts to be developed in a focused way around one of the most urgent European operational questions.
+
+---
+
+## 6. Work Packages (WPs)
+
+### Why SkyNav + DLR
+
+This section is intentionally concise and can be expanded once the full tender documents clarify the expected consortium profile, evidence requirements, and any mandatory competency areas.
+
+SkyNav + DLR is a strong fit for tender `182213` because it combines:
+
+- SkyNav's operational ATM, regulatory, validation-planning, and software-integration capability
+- DLR's technical and scientific credibility in modelling and ATM validation
+- a compact consortium structure that keeps ownership, accountability, and exploitation clear
+
+This pairing is also strategically coherent. SkyNav leads the translation of technical outputs into decision-support software and operational artefacts. DLR strengthens the modelling and validation case. Together, the team can present a bid that is both technically credible and clearly product-led.
+
+Most importantly, this structure avoids one of the recurring weaknesses seen in broader tenders: diffuse roles and overbuilt consortia. For this activity, clarity is likely to score better than scale.
+
+### WP1 - Project Management and Quality Assurance
+
+Purpose:
+Ensure disciplined delivery, technical integration control, risk management, reporting, and quality assurance.
+
+Key tasks:
+
+- governance and reporting
+- technical quality reviews
+- risk and issue management
+- milestone and deliverable consistency control
+
+Outputs:
+
+- project management plan
+- quality assurance plan
+- periodic progress reporting
+
+### WP2 - Requirements, Operational Scenarios, and Evaluation Framework
+
+Purpose:
+Define the operational decision problem in aviation terms and establish measurable success criteria from day one.
+
+Key tasks:
+
+- stakeholder needs analysis
+- operational scenario definition
+- Long March 5B-style reference scenario definition
+- KPI framework and baseline definition
+- validation and acceptance criteria
+
+Outputs:
+
+- operational requirements specification
+- scenario catalogue
+- KPI and validation framework
+
+### WP3 - Subsonic Fragment Modelling and Uncertainty Analysis
+
+Purpose:
+Develop the technical core for assessing subsonic debris fragment behaviour after breakup.
+
+Key tasks:
+
+- fragmentation and descent modelling approach selection
+- uncertainty propagation design
+- Monte Carlo and confidence-band generation
+- sensitivity analysis
+
+Outputs:
+
+- fragment modelling specification
+- uncertainty and sensitivity report
+- technical prototype of fragment risk engine
+
+### WP4 - Aircraft Exposure, Airspace Impact, and Decision Logic
+
+Purpose:
+Translate fragment behaviour into aviation-relevant risk outputs and decision-support products.
+
+Key tasks:
+
+- aircraft exposure logic
+- aircraft vulnerability model integration
+- airspace and FIR impact mapping
+- route and traffic-density integration
+- advisory threshold definition
+
+Outputs:
+
+- aircraft exposure module
+- airspace impact module
+- decision-support logic and output specification
+
+### WP5 - Integrated Demonstrator and Validation
+
+Purpose:
+Demonstrate the end-to-end capability and prove its operational usefulness.
+
+Key tasks:
+
+- system integration
+- historical case replay
+- scenario-based testing
+- comparison with conservative baseline decisions
+- stakeholder review sessions
+
+Outputs:
+
+- integrated demonstrator
+- validation report
+- operational lessons learned report
+
+### WP6 - Dissemination, Exploitation, and Uptake Pathway
+
+Purpose:
+Ensure the project has a credible route beyond the study itself.
+
+Key tasks:
+
+- dissemination to technical and institutional audiences
+- engagement with aviation and space safety stakeholders
+- uptake pathway definition
+- productisation pathway into SpaceCom
+
+Outputs:
+
+- dissemination and exploitation plan
+- institutional uptake brief
+- SpaceCom integration roadmap for follow-on deployment
+
+### Placeholder Deliverables Table
+
+This table is provisional and should be updated once the ESA tender pack confirms the formal work structure, milestone logic, and expected deliverable types.
+
+| ID | Deliverable Title | Indicative WP | Type | Timing | Lead | Status |
+|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
+| D1.1 | Project Management and Quality Plan | WP1 | Report | TBD | SkyNav | Placeholder |
+| D2.1 | Requirements, Scenarios, and Evaluation Framework | WP2 | Report | TBD | SkyNav | Placeholder |
+| D2.2 | KPI Baseline and Validation Methodology | WP2 | Report | TBD | SkyNav | Placeholder |
+| D3.1 | Subsonic Fragment Modelling Specification | WP3 | Technical Report | TBD | DLR | Placeholder |
+| D3.2 | Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Report | WP3 | Technical Report | TBD | DLR | Placeholder |
+| D4.1 | Aircraft Exposure and Vulnerability Method | WP4 | Technical Report | TBD | SkyNav / DLR | Placeholder |
+| D4.2 | Airspace Impact and Decision Logic Specification | WP4 | Technical Report | TBD | SkyNav | Placeholder |
+| D5.1 | Integrated Demonstrator | WP5 | Demonstrator | TBD | SkyNav | Placeholder |
+| D5.2 | Validation and Replay Report | WP5 | Report | TBD | DLR / SkyNav | Placeholder |
+| D6.1 | Dissemination and Exploitation Plan | WP6 | Report | TBD | SkyNav | Placeholder |
+| D6.2 | Institutional Uptake and Follow-On Roadmap | WP6 | Report | TBD | SkyNav | Placeholder |
+
+---
+
+## 7. Consortium Structure
+
+### Partner Roles
+
+- **Coordinator - SkyNav Europe:** Overall project leadership, system architecture, software ownership, operational translation layer, demonstrator integration, exploitation pathway, aviation-facing decision-support design, and post-project productisation into SpaceCom. SkyNav also leads the operational scenario framing, requirements traceability, validation planning, stakeholder coordination, and regulatory translation needed to turn technical analysis into usable aviation outputs.
+- **DLR - Preferred technical partner:** Fragment-modelling support, ATM simulation and validation methodology, scientific credibility, and evidence-based assessment of operational usefulness.
+- **Optional specialist partner(s):** Only where needed for aircraft vulnerability modelling or highly specific debris / re-entry modelling tasks not already covered by SkyNav and DLR.
+
+### Why SkyNav Should Lead
+
+SkyNav should not position itself as a peripheral software subcontractor in this bid. It should lead the bid because the strongest differentiator is not a single algorithm; it is the operational integration of fragmented technical domains into an airspace decision-support product.
+
+That integration problem is exactly what SpaceCom was designed to solve.
+
+The prior proposal material and SkyNav's public positioning show a consistent company profile:
+
+- decades of operational ATM experience
+- regulatory drafting and international aviation-policy capability
+- project leadership and cross-border stakeholder coordination
+- work on ECHO / ECHO2 and higher-airspace integration
+- strength in operational scenarios, validation planning, OSED-style concept work, and standards / regulatory translation
+
+That means SkyNav is not just commercially motivated to lead. It is substantively well placed to lead.
+
+### Consortium Design Principle
+
+The consortium should be compact, high-credibility, and easy to explain. The past ESR lessons show that diffuse task ownership and unclear partner roles are penalised. Every partner must have a visible task-level reason to exist.
+
+The recommended narrative is:
+
+- SkyNav leads and owns the resulting capability
+- DLR strengthens the scientific and validation case
+- the consortium stays small enough to remain product-led, measurable, and easy to evaluate
+
+That is a stronger structure than building a broad consortium too early or allowing the bid to drift away from SkyNav's ownership and exploitation path.
+
+---
+
+## 8. Impact
+
+### Scientific and Technical Impact
+
+The project will advance understanding in one of the least mature parts of uncontrolled re-entry risk assessment: the subsonic fragment regime as it relates to aircraft and managed airspace.
+
+It will also contribute an integrated framework joining:
+
+- fragment behaviour
+- uncertainty analysis
+- aircraft exposure and vulnerability
+- airspace operational interpretation
+
+### Operational Impact
+
+The direct operational benefit is improved decision quality for aviation stakeholders during re-entry events.
+
+Expected benefits include:
+
+- clearer identification of airspace genuinely at risk
+- stronger justification for precautionary measures
+- fewer unnecessarily broad closures where a narrower action is defensible
+- better coordination between technical and operational actors
+
+### Economic Impact
+
+The project targets a real economic pain point: high-cost operational disruption caused by blunt or poorly evidenced precautionary airspace decisions.
+
+Even modest improvements in targeted restriction logic can produce:
+
+- reduced network disruption
+- reduced airline and ANSP cost exposure
+- lower indirect cost from unnecessary precautionary action
+
+### Regulatory and Institutional Impact
+
+The project will provide a stronger evidence base for future European guidance and institutional decision criteria regarding re-entry debris in airspace.
+
+It is particularly well placed to support:
+
+- future aviation safety doctrine around re-entry events
+- better harmonisation of decision criteria across states
+- stronger institutional confidence in risk-informed rather than purely ad hoc closure responses
+
+---
+
+## 9. Exploitation Strategy
+
+### Commercialisation Path
+
+The outputs of this project are designed to flow directly into SpaceCom.
+
+This is important strategically: the project is not a one-off study disconnected from a product path. It strengthens a defined platform roadmap already oriented toward ANSP-facing re-entry decision support.
+
+The main exploitation route is:
+
+- integrate the validated outputs into the SpaceCom aviation-domain product layer
+- package them for ANSP shadow-mode and institutional demonstration use
+- expand toward operational deployments and support services
+
+### Revenue and Follow-On Path
+
+Potential follow-on routes include:
+
+- ANSP-facing software subscriptions or institutional deployments
+- funded pilot or shadow trials
+- follow-on institutional studies and validation activities
+- consulting and integration support around re-entry event readiness and operational procedures
+
+### Market Entry
+
+The first target users are:
+
+- ANSPs
+- aviation authorities
+- network-level operational safety stakeholders
+- space safety and civil protection actors needing aviation-facing interpretation of re-entry risk
+
+This sequence is stronger than trying to market a generic debris-analysis engine. The commercial edge lies in the decision-support layer.
+
+The market-entry logic is strongest when framed around SkyNav's existing positioning: operationally grounded aviation expertise, regulatory fluency, and the ability to convert a technically complex problem into a deployable, decision-support product rather than a stand-alone research model.
+
+---
+
+## 10. Risk Management
+
+| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
+|------|------------|--------|-----------|
+| Subsonic fragment behaviour is more uncertain than expected | Medium | High | Use a baseline-plus-advanced modelling strategy, expose uncertainty explicitly, and validate against replay scenarios rather than overclaiming precision |
+| Aircraft vulnerability modelling requires assumptions that are hard to validate directly | Medium | High | Bound assumptions clearly, involve specialist partner input, and publish decision limits and sensitivity analysis |
+| Operational users reject outputs as too technical or not decision-ready | Medium | High | Define operator-facing products in WP2, include ANSP review in validation, and test outputs against real operational questions |
+| Impact claims are criticised as qualitative | Medium | High | Put KPI logic and conservative-baseline comparison into the proposal early and carry them through all WPs |
+| Consortium roles become diffuse | Low | High | Assign task-level ownership in each WP and keep the consortium compact |
+| Data availability for historical validation is limited | Medium | Medium | Use mixed validation strategy: historical replay where possible, synthetic scenario set where needed, and explicit evidence grading |
+| Regulatory pathway is slower than expected | Medium | Medium | Treat project outputs as evidence-building and decision-support input, not immediate regulatory replacement |
+
+### Software Delivery Risks
+
+This subsection is intentionally candid and should be refined once the final delivery model, staffing plan, and partner commitments are confirmed.
+
+| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
+|------|------------|--------|-----------|
+| Prime has limited practical in-house software delivery track record relative to its strength in operations, regulation, and project leadership | Medium | High | Keep scope tightly controlled, structure delivery around clearly bounded modules, bring in technical partner support where needed, and use formal acceptance criteria for each software increment |
+| Project leadership is strong in programme management but not yet backed by extensive hands-on software product delivery experience | Medium | High | Use a delivery model with explicit technical ownership, sprint-level review gates, external code review, and milestone-based demo acceptance rather than relying on informal oversight |
+| Requirements may drift from implementable software scope because the domain problem is richer than the initial delivery capacity | Medium | High | Prioritise a minimal demonstrator around the tender's core problem, freeze scope early, and defer non-essential platform features to post-project SpaceCom phases |
+| Over-reliance on contractors or external contributors for core software build could weaken continuity after project close | Medium | Medium | Retain software architecture, requirements traceability, and integration ownership inside SkyNav; ensure all external work is documented, reviewed, and absorbed into the product roadmap |
+| The team may overestimate internal capacity to turn domain expertise into production-grade software artefacts | Medium | High | Make software engineering maturity an explicit management topic, schedule integration and test effort early, and require working prototypes and acceptance tests at each major stage |
+| Validation artefacts may be stronger than the demonstrator itself if software build effort slips | Medium | Medium | Tie validation planning to actual implemented increments, require demonstrable end-to-end workflows before major review points, and avoid producing paper outputs disconnected from working capability |
+
+The proposal should not attempt to hide this risk. A stronger position is to show that SkyNav understands where its core strengths lie, where support is needed, and how software delivery will be governed so that the project remains credible and controlled.
+
+---
+
+## 11. Implementation Timeline
+
+### Phase 1 - Setup and Requirements (Months 1-4)
+
+- consortium mobilisation
+- project governance setup
+- requirements and stakeholder framing
+- scenario and KPI framework finalisation
+
+### Phase 2 - Core Model Development (Months 5-11)
+
+- fragment-regime modelling
+- uncertainty analysis framework
+- aircraft exposure and vulnerability logic
+- baseline model comparison
+
+### Phase 3 - Integration and Validation (Months 12-19)
+
+- integration of core modules
+- historical case replay
+- scenario-driven validation
+- stakeholder review cycles
+
+### Phase 4 - Exploitation and Final Packaging (Months 20-24)
+
+- final demonstrator refinement
+- evidence package and final reporting
+- uptake and exploitation package
+- SpaceCom integration roadmap
+
+---
+
+## 12. Key Success Factors
+
+- A narrowly focused, technically explicit scope rather than a sprawling concept bid
+- Early KPI definition and clear validation logic
+- Strong translation from physics to operational aviation use
+- A compact consortium with visible task-level roles
+- Credible institutional and commercial follow-on pathway
+- Proposal language that shows measurable impact, not just strategic relevance
+
+---
+
+## 13. Common Pitfalls to Avoid
+
+- presenting the project as a generic SSA or re-entry study without the aviation decision-support layer
+- broad objectives without measurable outputs
+- impact language without KPIs or baselines
+- unclear distinction between scientific modelling and operator-facing outputs
+- vague validation plan deferred to a later work package
+- diffuse consortium roles
+- overclaiming regulatory transformation instead of evidence-building
+
+---
+
+## 14. Draft Bid Narrative
+
+### Executive Positioning
+
+AIRSAFE will address one of the most operationally urgent and technically underdeveloped problems in European space safety and aviation: how to assess, interpret, and act on the risk posed by subsonic space debris re-entry fragments crossing managed airspace.
+
+The project responds directly to the growing frequency of uncontrolled re-entries, the demonstrated operational disruption they can cause, and the recognised inadequacy of current assessment methods when aviation decision-makers need to determine whether, where, and for how long airspace restrictions are justified.
+
+AIRSAFE is built on a simple but powerful proposition: Europe does not only need better re-entry modelling; it needs better translation of re-entry risk into aviation action.
+
+### What the Project Will Deliver
+
+The project will deliver a validated framework that combines:
+
+- subsonic fragment behaviour modelling
+- uncertainty-aware hazard generation
+- aircraft exposure and vulnerability assessment
+- managed-airspace and traffic-context integration
+- operational decision-support outputs
+
+This will allow the project to move beyond broad hazard characterisation and toward practical airspace-relevant outputs such as:
+
+- likely affected FIRs
+- time-windowed risk zones
+- confidence-bounded airspace footprints
+- comparison between conservative closure assumptions and refined risk-informed assessments
+
+### Why SkyNav Is Credible
+
+SkyNav's credibility comes from the fact that this is not a speculative pivot. The SpaceCom roadmap already defines the operational architecture needed to turn uncertain re-entry physics into aviation-facing action support. That includes hazard corridors, FIR intersection logic, uncertainty communication, and operator-oriented output design.
+
+In other words, AIRSAFE is not trying to invent a product direction from scratch. It is using a focused ESA activity to mature the most strategically valuable and operationally urgent component of an existing platform vision.
+
+SkyNav's existing company profile also supports this bid directly. Across previous proposals and its public-facing positioning, the company consistently presents strength in:
+
+- operational ATM practice
+- regulatory drafting and implementation support
+- validation planning and requirements traceability
+- higher-airspace and space-transport integration work
+- stakeholder engagement across ANSP, regulatory, and international coordination contexts
+
+With DLR alongside SkyNav, the bid can show a credible combination of:
+
+- product ownership and SME agility
+- scientific and modelling depth
+- operational and regulatory relevance
+
+That combination is exactly what a winning prime-led SME bid should look like.
+
+### Why This Matters to Europe
+
+Europe’s current exposure is not only technical. It is operational, regulatory, and economic.
+
+As re-entry events increase, European airspace managers will face more decisions in which the cost of over-reaction is high, but the cost of under-reaction is unacceptable. Current tools do not provide enough confidence in the subsonic fragment and aircraft-risk layer of the problem. AIRSAFE will address that exact deficiency.
+
+The outcome will not be a promise of perfect certainty. It will be a framework for safer, better-justified, and less unnecessarily disruptive decision-making under uncertainty.
+
+---
+
+## 15. Final Checklist
+
+- [ ] Objectives are measurable and tied to validation
+- [ ] KPI table is included early in the proposal
+- [ ] Methodology names the actual modelling approaches and data assumptions
+- [ ] Validation is defined in the bid, not deferred
+- [ ] Operational users and decisions are explicit
+- [ ] Consortium roles are concrete and defensible
+- [ ] Impact includes reduction in unnecessary conservatism as well as safety benefit
+- [ ] Exploitation is tied directly to SpaceCom productisation
+- [ ] Proposal language remains sharp, evidence-led, and operationally grounded
+
+---
+
+## Reflective Prompt
+
+Does this proposal read as a disciplined programme to improve aviation decision quality during uncontrolled re-entry events, or does it drift back into a broad and under-measured space safety concept?
+
+If the answer is the latter at any point, the draft should be tightened before submission.

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/101288039_SPARTA_ESR.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Proposal Evaluation Form
+ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
+Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Evaluation Summary 
+Report - Research and 
+innovation actions
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-IR-02
+Type of action: HORIZON-JU-RIA
+Proposal number: 101288039
+Proposal acronym: SPARTA
+Duration (months): 36
+Proposal title: SPARTA — Space-ATM Real-Time Awareness
+Activity: IR-02-WA5
+N. Proposer name Country Total 
+eligible 
+costs
+% Grant 
+Requested
+%
+1 EUROCONTROL - EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE 
+SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION
+BE 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+2 DFS DEUTSCHE FLUGSICHERUNG GMBH DE 81,130 1.97% 81,130 1.97%
+3 DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUR LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT 
+EV
+DE 908,224.63 22.09% 908,224.63 22.09%
+4 LUFTFARTSVERKET SE 315,285.78 7.67% 315,285.78 7.67%
+5 ENAV SPA IT 176,917.31 4.30% 176,917.31 4.30%
+6 NATS (EN ROUTE) PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY UK 217,059.41 5.28% 217,059.41 5.28%
+7 ENAIRE ES 106,750 2.60% 106,750 2.60%
+8 Europe Space Centre GmbH DE 55,835.85 1.36% 55,835.85 1.36%
+9 ENTE NAZIONALE PER L'AVIAZIONE CIVILE - ENAC 
+ITALIAN CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY
+IT 242,383.75 5.90% 242,383.75 5.90%
+10 SkyNav Europe BE 842,928.98 20.50% 842,928.98 20.50%
+11 ECOLE NATIONALE DE L AVIATION CIVILE FR 162,470 3.95% 162,470 3.95%
+12 LINKOPINGS UNIVERSITET SE 73,237.5 1.78% 73,237.5 1.78%
+13 C.I.R.A. CENTRO ITALIANO RICERCHE AEROSPAZIALI 
+SCPA
+IT 279,226.78 6.79% 279,226.78 6.79%
+14 SCEYE SPAIN S.L. ES 190,400 4.63% 190,400 4.63%
+15 INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF AIR TRAFFIC 
+CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATIONS
+CA 116,812.5 2.84% 116,812.5 2.84%
+16 OpenUTM Ltd. IE 59,745 1.45% 59,745 1.45%
+17 THALES LAS FRANCE SAS FR 114,625 2.79% 114,625 2.79%
+18 ANRA TECHNOLOGIES UK LTD UK 168,317.63 4.09% 168,317.63 4.09%
+19 HAPS Alliance US 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+  Total:   4,111,350.12   4,111,350.12  
+Abstract:
+ 101288039/SPARTA-28/01/2026-10:01:27 1 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968685 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+The development of an enhanced Network Real-time Monitoring Module and associated enhanced procedures and eventual enhanced supporting tools 
+for the management of space-launch and higher-altitude operations at the level of the European ATM Network Manager (NM). It includes space and 
+higher-altitude operations data integration (from Launch and Re-entry Operators (LRO), Launch and Re-entry site operators (LRSO), STM, Higher 
+Altitude vehicle and site Operators with the NM and ATM), looking to generate, maintain and broadcast a full European network wide situational 
+awareness picture. Note that this a continuation of ongoing research embedded in the SESAR 3 project ECHO 2, under the HORIZON-SESAR-2022-
+DES-IR-01 Call.
+Evaluation Summary Report
+Evaluation Result
+Total score: 13.62 (Threshold: 10 )
+Criterion 1 - Excellence - weight 40%
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.40
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives: degree to which the objectives and scope are compliant with the call material, well understood 
+and fully addressed. 
+- Soundness of the proposed methodology for developing the SESAR solutions from their initial to their target maturity level, including the 
+underlying concepts, models, assumptions and interdisciplinary approaches. This criterion also includes appropriate consideration of the 
+integration of a gender dimension into R&I content and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research 
+outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate. 
+- Level of awareness of the state of the art: degree to which the proposal demonstrates knowledge of current operations and relevant previous R&D 
+work (both within and outside SESAR), explains how the proposed work will go beyond the state of the art and demonstrates breakthrough 
+innovation potential.
+SPARTA proposal is in line with the call specifications of WA5-2 ‘’Highly automated ATM for all airspace users'' and addresses the Enhanced automation support 
+for space-launch management. The concept of operation covers the strategic, pre-tactical and execution of Space Transport Operations (STO) integrated with the 
+ATM systems and processes. 
+The proposal identifies two solutions. Solution 1 addresses the strategic and pre-tactical phase of STO Mission Planning integrated with ATM Systems to provide the 
+NM, ANSPs and State authorities with all the data necessary to assess the impact on the safe and regular management of the air traffic. Solution 2 focuses on the 
+execution of launches and re-entry operations. These Solutions shall also provide STO/HAO operators with clear and predictable processes. These objectives are 
+compliant with the call material. 
+The development of these Solutions is based on the work done on the previous ECHO2 project, but SPARTA extends the scope of launch and re-entry operations to 
+cover strategic and pre-tactical phases and introduces new elements such as planning frameworks, CDM processes, and the inclusion of HAO/HAPS in an 
+operational context to be validated at TRL6. This will be done by producing a complete set of deliverables and validated solutions that are ready for 
+standardization, regulation and eventual deployment. 
+The scientific methodology is clear and sound. The approach is aligned with the SESAR Framework and associated models, ensuring that the concepts, assumptions, 
+and architectural elements are applied. The proposal maturity target is well defined. The proposal explains what the solutions are aiming to achieve; however they 
+are not linked to clear performance objectives and the qualitative performance expectations are not sufficiently described. This is a shortcoming. 
+The validation activities for reaching the target maturity level are defined very briefly and the proposal explains that the validation activities will be defined in the 
+VALP. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+The DMP, the open-science and FAIR aspects are covered to a satisfactory level. 
+The work of SPARTA is mainly based on previous projects ECHO and ECHO2 as the topic is new and not consistently implemented in Europe. SPARTA goes 
+beyond the state of the art proposing a standardized, interoperable and harmonized concept and prototypes in scope, with a higher maturity and integrated in the 
+ATM system. 
+However, the proposal does not adequately consider the new service delivery model and the level of automation. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+The proposal defines that live operational systems will not be used to avoid procedural, security, and stability risks. However, it is not clearly determined how the 
+cybersecurity aspects will be handled. This is a shortcoming.
+Criterion 2 - Impact - weight 40%
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.70
+ 101288039/SPARTA-28/01/2026-10:01:27 2 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968685 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 3 ===
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the call material. 
+- Appropriateness of the contribution to standardisation and regulation: the extent to which the proposal demonstrates that the project will 
+contribute appropriately to the relevant standardisation and regulatory activities. 
+- Suitability and quality of the measures in terms of maximising expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation 
+(D&E) plan, including communication activities.
+The impact on the realization of the objectives and performance identified in the ATM Master Plan (MP) for the phase D can be found in the scope and objectives 
+of SPARTA. For each Solution, an assessment of the impact has been well-provided in the proposal. The solutions developed in SPARTA will impact operational 
+and safety, network performance, regulation and interoperability, demonstrating as such its potential breakthrough of the business as usual. By addressing these 
+elements, SPARTA contributes to making STO and HAO missions integrated in the Digital European Sky, where all the Airspace Users (AUs) have a seamless 
+access to the airspace with high degree of safety and efficiency as required in the ATM MP Phase D. 
+The breakthrough of SPARTA versus business as usual is the potential to shift STO mission management from today reactive posture and fragmented document-
+based exchanges, to a predictive, responsive and coordinated process at European network level. By enabling faster, more accurate and less disruptive hazard 
+management, the solution strengthens safety and improves overall efficiency of the network for accounting all kind of operations included STO and HAO. 
+The impact pathways, while credible, are largely qualitative. Quantitative indicators for assessing system-level benefits and D&E performance are not fully 
+elaborated. This is a shortcoming. 
+The outputs of SPARTA's Project Deliverables are suitable, concerning the contribution to standardization and regulation. OSED and Stand and Reg deliverables 
+will be used for submission to ICAO, EUROCAE, and the EUR STO Project Team, providing direct pathway into standardization, interoperability, regulation and 
+industrialization. 
+An initial plan of Communication, Dissemination and Exploitation (CDE) activities is formulated with sufficient details. This is also reflected in the dedicated WP 
+where activities, milestones and deliverables to be produced are sufficiently described. 
+The IPR aspect is properly addressed and an IPR framework at Consortium Agreement level will be also implemented.
+Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation - weight 20%
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.50
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Quality and effectiveness of the work plan and assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources 
+overall. 
+- Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.
+The SPARTA Work Plan is structured to ensure that all Work Packages contribute to the delivery of two coherent SESAR Solutions, with evidence of strong 
+alignment across planning and operational phases as the proposal manages interdependencies both vertically (between phases of the same solution) and 
+horizontally (across solutions and cross-cutting WPs). The breakdown of the WPs is in line with the provisions of the SESAR Framework and Project Handbook. 
+The Initial Stand & Reg Deliverables are expected to be delivered late at month 18 for both of the solutions. Moreover, all the deliverables' final draft should be 
+provided two months before the Exit Maturity Gate, however some of them planned to be delivered later than the gate. This is a shortcoming. 
+The project structure complies with the Lump Sum approach and principles. 
+While the proposal outlines the main responsibilities of Work Package leaders and provides an overall view of consortium roles, it does not provide sufficient task-
+level details of the individual contributions. For example, there is no clear description of the activities to be performed by ANRA Technologies UK Ltd, which is 
+requesting funding under the project. The proposal does not clearly specify this partner’s concrete responsibilities, deliverables, or level of involvement in specific 
+work packages. This a minor shortcoming.
+Scope of the application
+Status:  Yes
+Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope)
+Not provided
+Exceptional funding
+A third country participant/international organisation not listed in may exceptionally receive funding if the General Annex to the Main Work Programme 
+their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research 
+infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more 
+information, see the ) HE programme guide 
+Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. 
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC)
+Status:  No
+ 101288039/SPARTA-28/01/2026-10:01:27 3 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968685 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 4 ===
+If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the 
+reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information.
+Not provided
+Use of human embryos
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project.
+Not provided
+Activities excluded from funding
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain.
+Not provided
+Do no significant harm principle
+Status:  Yes
+If Partially/No/Cannot be assessed please explain
+Not provided
+Exclusive focus on civil applications
+Status:  Yes
+If NO, please explain.
+Not provided
+Artificial Intelligence
+Status:  No
+If YES, the technical robustness of the proposed system must be evaluated under the appropriate criterion.
+Overall comments
+Not provided
+ 101288039/SPARTA-28/01/2026-10:01:27 4 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968685 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 5 ===
+ 
+ 
+Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
+ 
+ 
+  
+ 
+This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your 
+organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally 
+sealed. 
+This digital signature mechanism, using a public -private key pair mechanism, uniquely 
+binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European 
+Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integr ity. 
+Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your 
+organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. 
+Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic 
+signature, which can b e verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation 
+symbol. 
+More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders 
+Portal.  
+(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) 
+ 

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/101288550_SCAN_ESR.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,269 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Proposal Evaluation Form
+ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
+Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Evaluation Summary 
+Report - Research and 
+innovation actions
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-IR-02
+Type of action: HORIZON-JU-RIA
+Proposal number: 101288550
+Proposal acronym: SCAN
+Duration (months): 36
+Proposal title: SCAN: Reviewing, Adapting and Developing CNS Infrastructure and Services to Ensure the Safe 
+Integration of HAO And STO Vehicles
+Activity: IR-02-WA3-2
+N. Proposer name Country Total 
+eligible 
+costs
+% Grant 
+Requested
+%
+1 EUROCONTROL - EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE 
+SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION
+BE 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+2 DFS DEUTSCHE FLUGSICHERUNG GMBH DE 137,681.25 1.42% 137,681.25 1.42%
+3 LUFTFARTSVERKET SE 254,709.88 2.63% 254,709.88 2.63%
+4 EUROPEAN SATELLITE SERVICES PROVIDER SAS FR 95,988.2 0.99% 95,988.2 0.99%
+5 NATS (EN ROUTE) PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY UK 56,147.79 0.58% 56,147.79 0.58%
+6 DIRECTION DES SERVICES DE LA NAVIGATION 
+AERIENNE
+FR 182,656.25 1.89% 182,656.25 1.89%
+7 SkyNav Europe BE 561,397.73 5.80% 561,397.73 5.80%
+8 ECOLE NATIONALE DE L AVIATION CIVILE FR 124,162.5 1.28% 124,162.5 1.28%
+9 LINKOPINGS UNIVERSITET SE 99,225 1.02% 99,225 1.02%
+10 C.I.R.A. CENTRO ITALIANO RICERCHE AEROSPAZIALI 
+SCPA
+IT 178,190.46 1.84% 178,190.46 1.84%
+11 SCEYE SPAIN S.L. ES 3,586,975 37.03% 3,586,975 37.03%
+12 SKYDWELLER CANARIAS SL ES 1,339,800 13.83% 1,339,800 13.83%
+13 SKYDWELLER SL ES 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+14 PARQUE TECNOLOGICO DE FUERTEVENTURASA MP ES 164,281.25 1.70% 164,281.25 1.70%
+15 Elson Space España S.L. ES 911,562.75 9.41% 911,562.75 9.41%
+16 DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUR LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT 
+EV
+DE 687,225.88 7.09% 687,225.88 7.09%
+17 PILDO CONSULTING SL ES 233,187.5 2.41% 233,187.5 2.41%
+18 ENAIRE ES 322,866.25 3.33% 322,866.25 3.33%
+19 OpenUTM Ltd. IE 81,279.63 0.84% 81,279.63 0.84%
+20 ANRA TECHNOLOGIES UK LTD UK 193,909.63 2.00% 193,909.63 2.00%
+21 SKYPUZZLER APS DK 475,343.75 4.91% 475,343.75 4.91%
+22 HAPS Alliance US 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+  Total:   9,686,590.7   9,686,590.7  
+Abstract:
+ 101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 1 /
+6 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+In the context of integrating Space and Higher Altitude Operations in European ATM, there is a need to evaluate and mitigate the potential 
+performance gap between current CNS and HAO specific requirements. Moreover, it has been established that altimetry solutions based on 
+barometric measurements are not reliable for safe operations above FL 600. It is therefore needed to identify non-barometric altimetry solutions 
+compatible with HAO. 
+SCAN will build on the outcome of CNS infrastructure studies and flight trials currently ongoing in the ECHO2 project and will move forward with 
+the ambition to: 
+a. Propose a set of feasible technical components and services to serve the CNS needs for diverse vehicles operating in the higher airspace within 
+Europe and beyond; 
+b. Engage with airspace users (conventional aviation and HAO operators), ANSPs, industry and aviation authorities to align expectations on benefits 
+and operational acceptability of the proposed CNS solutions or new paradigms for air traffic management. 
+c. Support a clear path forward for future CNS developments, including standardisation and regulatory framework evolution to support the European 
+pioneer initiatives on HAO.
+Evaluation Summary Report
+Evaluation Result
+Total score: 14.76 (Threshold: 10 )
+Criterion 1 - Excellence - weight 40%
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.90
+ 101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 2 /
+6 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 3 ===
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives: degree to which the objectives and scope are compliant with the call material, well understood 
+and fully addressed. 
+- Soundness of the proposed methodology for developing the SESAR solutions from their initial to their target maturity level, including the 
+underlying concepts, models, assumptions and interdisciplinary approaches. This criterion also includes appropriate consideration of the 
+integration of a gender dimension into R&I content and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research 
+outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate. 
+- Level of awareness of the state of the art: degree to which the proposal demonstrates knowledge of current operations and relevant previous R&D 
+work (both within and outside SESAR), explains how the proposed work will go beyond the state of the art and demonstrates breakthrough 
+innovation potential.
+Proposal’s objectives are in scope of the call addressing R&I needs for IR-3-01 CNSaaS specific to HAO and IR-3-09 CNS for more robust ATM system. 
+The proposal is delivering one Solution “CNS means to serve HAO” with several clearly stated objectives around the CNS for Higher Airspace Operations (HAO) 
+including technological, financial, operational and regulatory and standardization goals, including flight trails of HAPs and a rocket launch, which is line with the 
+Call specification. The objectives are very clear and pertinent to the work program and the Call specification. The high level objective to identify the best CNS 
+means to serve HAO is highly relevant. 
+The proposal starts with TRL 2 and aims to reach TRL 6, in line with the call conditions. The proposal intends to complete TRL 6 based on validation in 
+operational environments with flights of different vehicles, which is adequate. 
+The objective to use the geometric altimetry in the higher airspace to deal with current limitations of barometric altimetry due to very low air density is relevant. 
+The combination of flight trials to collect CNS performance data in higher airspace, with a gap analysis and feasibility study of new CNS technologies is useful. 
+The methods used are straight forward and use mainly using legacy CNS technologies to be tested in HAO. A big number of technologies will be assessed using 
+different platforms, which is a plus. 
+The focus on quantitative assessment of key performance indicators (KPIs) using flight trials (in upper airspace) is an effective way to select CNS technologies for 
+HAO. 
+Although the diversity is critical for testing the CNS solutions in varied operational environments, it is noted that the Skydweller operates up to FL500, while the 
+targeted environment is above FL500. The inclusion of this vehicle is insufficiently justified. However, as other vehicles are also included that operate above 
+FL500. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+The inclusion of a CBA per technology is a useful consideration when selecting CNS technologies for HAO. 
+A list of CNS technologies to be assessed has been provided and it is sufficiently complete. 
+Although the notion of non-cooperating traffic is mentioned, a consideration is missing on the fact that for some HAO the control center may be on the ground with 
+no need for A/G communication. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+The concepts, models and assumptions are clear and sound. The validation activities with different flying platforms are described in a very detailed, 
+comprehensive and credible way. The use of special directional antennas to avoid jamming and interference is strong. 
+The project adequately builds on the previous SESAR projects ECHO and ECHO2. An explanation of where the boundaries lie between ECHO2 and SCAN is 
+provided. The relation to the Concept of Operations developed by the ECHO project is sufficiently explained. 
+It is expanding the maturity of the current R&D towards feasible technical components and services in CNS for HAO. 
+There are a lot of ground breaking research items, especially the end-to-end layered approach that integrates all enablers, e.g. NAV, telemetry, data fusion and 
+distribution to authorized stakeholders in a novel approach. 
+The project’s methodology supports open science principles. Non-sensitive datasets, interface definitions, and technical documentation will be made openly 
+available, enabling other research and operational projects to build on SCAN’s outputs. The research data management activity is dealt with a Data Management 
+Plan (WP2) , maintained with update iterations during the length of the project. 
+The use of AI is not considered. 
+The topic does not aim at increasing automation to level 4 and it does not explain how the concept can operate in a level 4 environment. This is a shortcoming.
+Criterion 2 - Impact - weight 40%
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )5.00
+ 101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 3 /
+6 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 4 ===
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the call material. 
+- Appropriateness of the contribution to standardisation and regulation: the extent to which the proposal demonstrates that the project will 
+contribute appropriately to the relevant standardisation and regulatory activities. 
+- Suitability and quality of the measures in terms of maximising expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation 
+(D&E) plan, including communication activities.
+The proposal is declaring in a clear and traceable manner the impact of its results. 
+The concepts and technologies supporting operations in high altitude airspace are not covered today. The proposal will assess CNS technologies with real flight trials 
+with various vehicles, hence various trajectories. This is essential for the further development of future High Altitude Operations (HAO). 
+The contribution of the project towards the expected outcomes of the topic in terms of KPA/KPI and the wider impacts (ATM Master Plan 2025), in the longer term 
+towards 2030 and 2045 are explained very well, are credible but they are not quantified. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+There is one WP dedicated to the development of CNS as a Service, which is in line with the New Service Delivery Model. 
+The relevance of HAO for telecommunications, disaster relief, antenna relay, earth observation and scientific exploration is explained adequately. 
+Standards and regulations issues are addressed very well and all related regulatory and standardization organizations e.g. ICAO, EUROCAE, EASA are identified. 
+The process of interacting with these organizations including the proper deliverables and processes are also very well explained. 
+The proposal convincingly justifies the clear and pressing need for updated standards and regulations across multiple domains, including ATM, UTM, CNS 
+tracking, deconfliction, and the Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) framework. This requirement is thoroughly addressed, with all relevant regulatory 
+bodies and standardization organizations (e.g. EUROCAE) listed. 
+This is done by contributing validated evidence and operational concepts from European HAO trials to EUROCAE and JARUS, facilitating recognition as global 
+standards at ICAO level. 
+Moreover, the procedures for engaging with these organizations, along with the expected deliverables, are articulated with clarity and precision. 
+The communication, dissemination and exploitation (CDE) plan will consider the relevant measures that are introduced in the proposal. Target groups are identified 
+very well and grouped according to Communication and Dissemination activities. Target group(s) are also very well addressed (e.g. scientific community, end users, 
+military financial actors, public at large). 
+Exploitation is specifically mentioned but only at high level. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+IP aspects are briefly but sufficiently explained referring to the to-be signed Consortium Agreement (CA). 
+The results of the proposal will be shared with stakeholders and the society according to the content excluding those deliverables with security critical or sensitive 
+information. 
+All deliverables listed are of public (PU) nature.
+Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation - weight 20%
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.80
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Quality and effectiveness of the work plan and assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources 
+overall. 
+- Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.
+WP tasks are aligned with allocated resources. 
+The work breakdown is clear and consistent with the needs of the project, distinguishing conceptual and analytical foundations from the validation exercises. The 
+proposal provides an extensive list of clear activities and milestones with adequate target dates as well as the Exit Maturity gate planned in line with the project 
+handbook requirements. 
+All technical deliverables are identified in accordance with the Handbook 
+Milestones including the Exit Maturity Gate milestone/date per SESAR Solution are identified 
+The final technical deliverables are planned for M34, while it should be M32 according to the project handbook. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+The proposed work break down structure is compliant with the handbook. 
+The lump sum approach is applied. The allocated resources are adequate for the identified WP tasks. However, sub-WPs are defined but not the partners who are 
+working in the specific sub-WPs. Only for the flight trails of the different vehicle provides is clear who of the partners are the main contributors. In general, the 
+missing association of partner in the SOWs can lead to uncertainties within the partnership and worst case to duplication of work or no one doing the work needed. 
+This is a shortcoming. 
+A comprehensive risk assessment is provided with severities and impacts well defined. Also, several valid mitigation options are provided and are sufficiently 
+practical. 
+Although the budget seems very high for the development of a roadmap, it is actually justified by the need to work with single-use HAPS, including a sounding 
+rocket. 
+There are two partners with around 1% share of the efforts, another with less than 1% of the workshare (and significantly high rates), representing ANSPs. There 
+are other ANSPs in the consortium with more effort. There is not enough evidence provided where the two small partners are contributing. It cannot be expected 
+that there is specific know-how available from these ANSPs than from the other ANSPs involved. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+The consortium looks very complete and fit to do the job. The consortium would operate under the lead of ECTL (that has been leading ECHO and ECHO2 
+already), with participation from Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) for High Altitude Platforms (HAPS) and Operators, ANSPs, U-space in dustry, 
+research institutes. 
+The individual partners are insufficiently providing evidence of their capabilities in similar activities. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+However given the nature of those companies developing HAPS, there is a high risk that these partners will get into financial issues and might drop out . There is a 
+risk associated that cannot be neglected. In the risk assessment this risk is not mentioned. This is a minor shortcoming.
+Scope of the application
+Status:  Yes
+ 101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 4 /
+6 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 5 ===
+Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope)
+Not provided
+Exceptional funding
+A third country participant/international organisation not listed in may exceptionally receive funding if the General Annex to the Main Work Programme 
+their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research 
+infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more 
+information, see the ) HE programme guide 
+Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. 
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC)
+Status:  No
+If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the 
+reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information.
+Not provided
+Use of human embryos
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project.
+Not provided
+Activities excluded from funding
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain.
+Not provided
+Do no significant harm principle
+Status:  Yes
+If Partially/No/Cannot be assessed please explain
+Not provided
+Exclusive focus on civil applications
+Status:  Yes
+If NO, please explain.
+Not provided
+Artificial Intelligence
+ 101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 5 /
+6 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 6 ===
+Status:  No
+If YES, the technical robustness of the proposed system must be evaluated under the appropriate criterion.
+Overall comments
+The subcontracting costs of SCEYE for external software and cybersecurity support and Elson Space cost for performance degradation of solar arrays would 
+benefit of further clarification. 
+ 101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 6 /
+6 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 7 ===
+ 
+ 
+Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
+ 
+ 
+  
+ 
+This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your 
+organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally 
+sealed. 
+This digital signature mechanism, using a public -private key pair mechanism, uniquely 
+binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European 
+Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integr ity. 
+Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your 
+organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. 
+Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic 
+signature, which can b e verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation 
+symbol. 
+More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders 
+Portal.  
+(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) 
+ 

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/101288550_SCAN_EthSR.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Ethics Summary Report
+Call Reference HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-IR-02
+101288550Proposal Number
+SCANAcronym
+ 
+Ethics Issues
+Non-EU countries Yes
+Ethics Opinion
+Ethics clearance (the proposal is 'ethics ready')
+External Independent Ethics Advisor/Board
+In your opinion, would it be exceptionally necessary to appoint an external independent ethics advisor
+or an ethics board (with a minimum of three experts) reporting periodically to the
+Commission/Agency/funding body?
+No
+No ethics issues identified other than the participation of non-EU entities, with no associated ethics risk.
+General requirement applicable to all grants
+The beneficiaries must ensure that all ethics issues related to activities in the grant are addressed in compliance with
+ethical principles, the applicable international and national law, and the provisions set out in the Grant Agreement. This
+includes the ethics issues identified in this report and any additional ethics issues that may emerge in the course of the
+grant. In case any substantial new ethics issues arise, beneficiaries should inform the granting authority. For each ethics
+issue applicable, beneficiaries must follow the guidance provided in the How to complete your ethics self-assessment.
+11 /101288550/SCAN - 16/12/2025-15:47:45
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2025)11246335 - 16/12/2025
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+ 
+ 
+Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
+ 
+ 
+  
+ 
+This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your 
+organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally 
+sealed. 
+This digital signature mechanism, using a public -private key pair mechanism, uniquely 
+binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European 
+Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integr ity. 
+Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your 
+organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. 
+Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic 
+signature, which can b e verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation 
+symbol. 
+More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders 
+Portal.  
+(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) 
+ 

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/101289612_QUANTAIR_ESR.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,230 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Proposal Evaluation Form
+ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
+Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Evaluation Summary 
+Report - Research and 
+innovation actions
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-ER-03
+Type of action: HORIZON-JU-RIA
+Proposal number: 101289612
+Proposal acronym: QUANTAIR
+Duration (months): 24
+Proposal title: Quantum Technologies for Airspace Innovation and Resilience
+Activity: ER-03-WA1
+N. Proposer name Country Total 
+eligible 
+costs
+% Grant 
+Requested
+%
+1 DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUR LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT 
+EV
+DE 167,350 17.70% 167,350 17.70%
+2 Qoro Quantum Ltd UK 435,086.16 46.02% 435,086.16 46.02%
+3 SkyNav Europe BE 342,890.63 36.27% 342,890.63 36.27%
+  Total:   945,326.79   945,326.79  
+Abstract:
+European air traffic management is becoming increasingly complex. The system now has to handle a growing variety of airspace users — from 
+hypersonic vehicles and high-altitude long-endurance platforms such as stratospheric balloons and HAPS, to conventional subsonic flights. These 
+vehicles often operate in overlapping altitude bands but have vastly different speeds, climb/descent profiles, and manoeuvring capabilities. 
+At the same time, environmental policy drivers are stronger than ever. The EU Green Deal, ICAO’s long-term aspirational goals, and national climate 
+strategies are pushing for measurable reductions in both CO₂ and non-CO₂ impacts, such as persistent contrails. Resilience has also become a priority, 
+with the network increasingly affected by severe weather, technical failures, and geopolitical events that can close or restrict airspace at short notice. 
+One of the biggest technical challenges in all of these contexts is that many stakeholders — States, ANSPs, airlines, and defence operators — cannot 
+freely share operationally, privacy, or commercially sensitive data. Without that data, current modelling and optimisation tools have to work with 
+partial information, limiting their effectiveness. 
+Previous European research has already demonstrated that Federated Learning (FL) can bridge this gap, enabling accurate predictions without 
+requiring data to leave its origin. QUANTAIR proposes to take this further by pairing FL with quantum optimisation — allowing us to integrate 
+richer, privacy-protected data from multiple stakeholders, and then solve the resulting large-scale, multi-variable problems at speeds suitable for 
+operational decision-making.
+Evaluation Summary Report
+Evaluation Result
+Total score: 11.30 (Threshold: 10 )
+Criterion 1 - Excellence
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.00
+ 101289612/QUANTAIR-28/01/2026-09:48:41 1 /
+5 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)967916 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Clarity and pertinence of the proposal: degree to which the objectives, scope and requirements set out in the call material are well understood and 
+fully addressed. 
+- Soundness of the proposed methodology for developing the SESAR solutions, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions and 
+interdisciplinary approaches. This criterion also includes appropriate consideration of the integration of a gender dimension into R&I content and 
+the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users 
+where appropriate. 
+- Level of awareness of the state of the art: degree to which the proposal demonstrates knowledge of current operations and relevant previous R&D 
+work (both within and outside SESAR), explains how the proposed work will go beyond the state of the art and demonstrates innovation potential.
+QUANTAIR proposal is well-structured, in scope and addresses the priority ‘Quantum Computing (QC) applications in ATM’ under Work Area 1. The four diverse 
+case studies give breadth and robustness to the analysis and ensures relevance across operational domains. 
+Objectives are realistic and very promising to obtain a collaborative modeling aligned with SESAR Digital European Sky ambitions. Objectives will be realistically 
+achievable. However, they are broadly defined and therefore their measurability and verifiability are difficult. This approach does not make it possible to establish 
+KPIs or more concrete expectations at project conclusion. This is a shortcoming. 
+The proposal fits in idea to application’s spectrum, and it properly identifies the work in early stages of R&I maturity, concluding at TRL1. 
+The proposal proposes investigation on AI-based techniques and/or systems. However, there is no concretion on which federated learning methods will be used, 
+leading to difficulty assessing the approach in explainable AI, considering the technical robustness, reproducibility, and reliability. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+The research framework proposed is well described and logic to explore how Quantum Federated machine Learning (QFL) can be applied in ATM. The four 
+exploratory cases identified are concise and will guide the investigation. They are well formulated and balanced for resilience, operational efficiency, integration 
+of new entrants and sustainability. Furthermore, limitations of the actual approaches are well argued and consequently, the expected outputs from each case are 
+very well identified. 
+The proposal does not fully provide an adequate rationale on how to address automation level 4 and/or how it would revert to conditional automation level 3. This 
+is a shortcoming. 
+The interdisciplinary methodology proposed is convincingly presented in order to achieve the expected outcomes of the project. However, the proposal does not 
+sufficiently detail candidate models and/or methods to be researched as well as the datasets to cover all cases to generate synthetic data, leading to an insufficient 
+level of technical insights. This is a shortcoming. 
+The proposal provides a solid explanation of how distributed learning enables privacy-preserving collaboration across fragmented data sources. It clearly defines 
+assumptions, limitations, and the role of quantum computing as a conceptual extension rather than immediate delivery. 
+Open science (OS) practices are of a high standard and are adequately managed in the proposal. OS are aligned with the Horizon Europe guidelines, disseminating 
+research outputs in open and accessible formats using FAIR rules such as publications, software and modelling artifacts and synthetic data generated. Other 
+relevant strategies proposed are knowledge-sharing channels and organization of technical workshops. The proposal provides a detailed plan for transparent 
+research outputs and open access. It includes clear information on documentation, repositories, and licensing. Besides, the proposal also identifies and justifies no 
+raw data will be disseminated. In addition, the use of open-source data for simulations is convincing. 
+The research data management plan is properly addressed following the FAIR principles. 
+The proposal is very innovative because it uses a distributed approach instead of a centralized one for training models with dispersed data sources, something very 
+common in the ATM environment. 
+The proposal demonstrates good knowledge of operations, however, the proposal is limited in terms of state of the art review on both, quantum methods and 
+federated machine learning, outside and inside SESAR, not including sufficient references of SESAR projects such as SINAPSE. This is a shortcoming.
+Criterion 2 - Impact
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.00
+ 101289612/QUANTAIR-28/01/2026-09:48:41 2 /
+5 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)967916 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 3 ===
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the call material. 
+- Suitability and quality of the measures in terms of maximising expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation 
+(D&E) plan, including communication activities.
+The proposal addresses very well the expected outcomes of the topic, i.e. investigate quantum computing applied to ATM. The project outcomes will positively 
+contribute to a better understanding of the uses, benefits and limitations of QFL in ATM. It also demonstrates awareness of policy needs and engagements required 
+to influence and promote across international organizations such as ICAO, EASA and EUROCONTROL. Therefore, the project results will support defining a 
+pathway in this domain and a research agenda to progress towards higher TRLs in a more structured manner. 
+The proposal includes strong policy alignment and situational awareness linkages to higher-airspace roadmaps, contingency frameworks and climate work. 
+The proposal presents a thoughtful impact prospectus by setting a credible goal for collaborative modelling ATM, both in medium-term and to the wider long-term. 
+ATM challenges are well suited through the four exploratory cases proposed: predictability, higher-airspace entrants, disruption response and contrail mitigation. 
+The proposal addresses the wider impacts of the ATM Master Plan and justifies adherence to SESAR Deployment Objectives (SDOs) 3, 5 and 8, although in very 
+general terms. SESAR Phase D implementation and Key Performance Areas (KPAs) are not well considered. This is a shortcoming. 
+Requirements and key barriers that may influence whether the pathways can be realized are well identified, being data privacy and sovereignty a driver to use 
+federated machine learning. Potential barriers associated with quantum computing and methods are overlooked in the proposal. The mitigation measures for the 
+recognized barriers are ambiguous because they are very generically addressed. This is a shortcoming. 
+Target groups and beneficiaries are properly identified and described. 
+The communication and dissemination strategy is effective and appropriate with well described common communication channels, target groups and potential 
+panels and forums at ICAO and EASA, attendance at conferences, marketing material, among others. Open science commitments and programme-level 
+dissemination routes are well covered too focusing on participation in conferences and publications. Measures to share and reuse outputs with open access and 
+repositories are proportionate. 
+However, no clear reference KPIs are established to define targets and assess the performance at project closure, as well as a preliminary list of potential and 
+relevant peer-reviewed journals for dissemination (publications targets), website and social media reachability targets. In addition, exploitation will be conducted 
+through institutional channels, but this is insufficiently described in the proposal. All this is a shortcoming. 
+The intellectual-property approach is generically described. Furthermore, access/licensing terms for reuse and any embargo logic are not clearly specified. This is a 
+shortcoming.
+Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )3.30
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Quality and effectiveness of the work plan and assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources 
+overall. 
+- Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.
+The work plan proposed is structured in four WPs. However, the work plan is not clearly articulated because the different concrete outputs between WP2 and WP3 
+are not clearly distinguished. In addition, there are no clear tasks and assignments of roles among partners in each WP to clearly identify the work and 
+responsibilities. There are inconsistencies regarding the duration of the work packages and deliverables according to the Project Handbook, because the duration of 
+the project is 24 months and the last 6 months are dedicated to CDE activities. This implies that technical deliverables should be delivered at M14, for instance, 
+deliverables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are incorrectly delivered. In addition, deliverables 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 should be delivered at M22. Furthermore, the GANTT chart shows 
+a duration for WP2 of 6 months and a duration of 12 months for WP3, whereas in the work package description the duration of WP2 and WP3 is 9 months each. 
+These issues are collectively hindering the implementation and consequently entail a shortcoming. 
+CDE activities are split into two different WPs and led by two different partners, which causes unclarity in responsibilities in this aspect. This is a minor 
+shortcoming. 
+All technical deliverables required for TRL1 are listed, as well as classified as PU. 
+Regarding milestones, they are not aligned with the Project Handbook, because there is no explicit “Exit Maturity Gate” milestone. This is a shortcoming. 
+There is a good list of critical risks identified and categorized with an adequate set of mitigation measures and strategies to manage them. Risk management is 
+tailored to TRL1 and include inconclusive findings and synthetic-data credibility with pragmatic mitigations as well. 
+Regarding efforts, allocations and distribution among partners and WPs are reasonable to perform the work, except for WP1. 
+However, it is noted that SkyNav employs more Person Months than the Coordinator in WP1; this may be justified by SkyNav’s CDE lead, but it is unusual for 
+management. Furthermore, there are clear incoherences between the information presented in table 3.1a and the information included in table 3.1f, in terms of 
+PMs allocated to the same partner (DLR WP1 10 PMs vs 5PMs; Ooro WP2 18PMs vs 14PMs). In addition, it is unclear whether the total PM for the project is 50 
+(from table 3.1a) or 78.8 (from table 3.1f). This is a shortcoming. 
+The project team combines researchers, distributed systems engineers and air traffic management experts. Their roles are clearly delineated, and the joint design 
+approach is well structured for conceptual integration rather than development. Technical work packages are properly distributed at high-level and consistent with 
+the knowledge and background of partners. Tasks are very convincingly assigned to members of the consortium according to their technical background and 
+expertise and covers the required scientific and technical disciplines. 
+The Consortium brings together the necessary expertise required by the project framework and the project coordinator demonstrates also relevant experience in 
+SESAR for undertaking the project management.
+Scope of the application
+Status:  Yes
+ 101289612/QUANTAIR-28/01/2026-09:48:41 3 /
+5 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)967916 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 4 ===
+Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope)
+Not provided
+Exceptional funding
+A third country participant/international organisation not listed in may exceptionally receive funding if the General Annex to the Main Work Programme 
+their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research 
+infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more 
+information, see the ) HE programme guide 
+Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. 
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC)
+Status:  No
+If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the 
+reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information.
+Not provided
+Use of human embryos
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project.
+Not provided
+Activities excluded from funding
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain.
+Not provided
+Do no significant harm principle
+Status:  Yes
+If Partially/No/Cannot be assessed please explain
+Not provided
+Exclusive focus on civil applications
+Status:  Yes
+If NO, please explain.
+Not provided
+Artificial Intelligence
+ 101289612/QUANTAIR-28/01/2026-09:48:41 4 /
+5 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)967916 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 5 ===
+Status:  Yes
+If YES, the technical robustness of the proposed system must be evaluated under the appropriate criterion.
+Overall comments
+Not provided
+ 101289612/QUANTAIR-28/01/2026-09:48:41 5 /
+5 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)967916 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 6 ===
+ 
+ 
+Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
+ 
+ 
+  
+ 
+This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your 
+organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally 
+sealed. 
+This digital signature mechanism, using a public -private key pair mechanism, uniquely 
+binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European 
+Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integr ity. 
+Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your 
+organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. 
+Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic 
+signature, which can b e verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation 
+symbol. 
+More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders 
+Portal.  
+(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) 
+ 

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/101290642_STRATUS_ESR.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,224 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Proposal Evaluation Form
+ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
+Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Evaluation Summary 
+Report - Research and 
+innovation actions
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-ER-03
+Type of action: HORIZON-JU-RIA
+Proposal number: 101290642
+Proposal acronym: STRATUS
+Duration (months): 30
+Proposal title: STRATUS — Safety & Transformed Resilience for high-Altitude Traffic Unified Services
+Activity: ER-03-WA2
+N. Proposer name Country Total 
+eligible 
+costs
+% Grant 
+Requested
+%
+1 EUROCONTROL - EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE 
+SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION
+BE 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+2 DFS DEUTSCHE FLUGSICHERUNG GMBH DE 73,235 3.56% 73,235 3.56%
+3 ENAV SPA IT 73,924.08 3.60% 73,924.08 3.60%
+4 LUFTFARTSVERKET SE 180,375 8.78% 180,375 8.78%
+5 NATS (EN ROUTE) PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY UK 119,684.75 5.82% 119,684.75 5.82%
+6 ENAIRE ES 95,975 4.67% 95,975 4.67%
+7 ENTE NAZIONALE PER L'AVIAZIONE CIVILE - ENAC 
+ITALIAN CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY
+IT 102,268.75 4.98% 102,268.75 4.98%
+8 CONSORCIO AERODROMO AEROPUERTO DE TERUEL ES 88,000 4.28% 88,000 4.28%
+9 SkyNav Europe BE 253,269.75 12.32% 253,269.75 12.32%
+10 ECOLE NATIONALE DE L AVIATION CIVILE FR 78,250 3.81% 78,250 3.81%
+11 C.I.R.A. CENTRO ITALIANO RICERCHE AEROSPAZIALI 
+SCPA
+IT 53,907.5 2.62% 53,907.5 2.62%
+12 STICHTING KONINKLIJK NEDERLANDS LUCHT - EN 
+RUIMTEVAARTCENTRUM
+NL 157,795.25 7.68% 157,795.25 7.68%
+13 INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF AIR TRAFFIC 
+CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATIONS
+CA 63,125 3.07% 63,125 3.07%
+14 INGENIERIA Y ECONOMIA DEL TRANSPORTE SME MP SA ES 97,575 4.75% 97,575 4.75%
+15 CENTRO DE REFERENCIA INVESTIGACION 
+DESARROLLO E INNOVACION ATM, A.I.E.
+ES 59,250 2.88% 59,250 2.88%
+16 INSTITUUT VOOR INFRASTRUCTUUR, MILIEU EN 
+INNOVATIE
+BE 33,462.5 1.63% 33,462.5 1.63%
+17 OpenUTM Ltd. IE 7,237.5 0.35% 7,237.5 0.35%
+18 DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUR LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT 
+EV
+DE 153,000 7.44% 153,000 7.44%
+19 SCEYE SPAIN S.L. ES 280,175 13.63% 280,175 13.63%
+20 ANRA TECHNOLOGIES OU EE 84,656.25 4.12% 84,656.25 4.12%
+21 HAPS Alliance US 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+ 101290642/STRATUS-28/01/2026-09:52:41 1 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968292 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+22 UDARAS EITLIOCHTA NA HEIREANN THE IRISH 
+AVIATION AUTHORITY
+IE 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+  Total:   2,055,166.33   2,055,166.33  
+Abstract:
+STRATUS (Safety and Transformed Resilience for High-Altitude Traffic Unified Services) will define a modular and scalable framework for 
+integrating Higher Airspace Operations (HAO) and Space Transport Operations (STO) into the European ATM framework. The focus is on the low-
+density airspace above conventional traffic, generally above flight level FL550. This is where high-performance supersonic and hypersonic aircraft, 
+automated High Altitude Platform Systems (HAPS) fleets, and sub-orbital operations are expected to multiply in the coming decade. 
+Building on the exploratory CONOPS produced in the ECHO project, and taking into account the work now underway in ECHO2, STRATUS will 
+expand the scope to cover a wider set of operational scenarios, vehicle types and service models. It will address the operational, functional, technical 
+and regulatory foundations required for integration, in line with the priorities of the European ATM Master Plan for higher-airspace operations, 
+dynamic airspace configuration, service-oriented architectures and cyber-secure digitalisation. Concentrating on the higher airspace, where traffic 
+density is relatively low, provides the opportunity to mature and validate innovative concepts and technologies while limiting operational risk to 
+existing ATM. 
+The objectives of STRATUS follow a logical progression from establishing operational demand in higher airspace, through the development of 
+concepts and supporting frameworks, to the consideration of regulatory and other relevant implications that may influence successful implementation.
+Evaluation Summary Report
+Evaluation Result
+Total score: 10.40 (Threshold: 10 )
+Criterion 1 - Excellence
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.00
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Clarity and pertinence of the proposal: degree to which the objectives, scope and requirements set out in the call material are well understood and 
+fully addressed. 
+- Soundness of the proposed methodology for developing the SESAR solutions, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions and 
+interdisciplinary approaches. This criterion also includes appropriate consideration of the integration of a gender dimension into R&I content and 
+the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users 
+where appropriate. 
+- Level of awareness of the state of the art: degree to which the proposal demonstrates knowledge of current operations and relevant previous R&D 
+work (both within and outside SESAR), explains how the proposed work will go beyond the state of the art and demonstrates innovation potential.
+The proposal's objectives are pertinent to the scope of the work programme responding to the identified R&I need 10. “Innovative methodologies for ATM safety, 
+security, and resilience.” The proposal is focused on developing methods that will integrate higher airspace operations (HAO) and space transport operations (STO) 
+into the European ATM framework. However, the objectives of the proposal are only briefly described. This is a shortcoming. 
+The proposal’s discussion of automation focuses only on the service architecture framework rather than automation level 4 functions. The targeted automation 
+levels of the proposed service architecture are not adequately specified. This is a shortcoming. 
+The proposal includes considering and assessing the potential impact of the proposed regulatory evolutions on military aviation, in particular military operations 
+and training. 
+The methodology is well-structured and coherent, following logical progression from problem definition and concept development to assurance and regulatory 
+analysis. It demonstrates awareness of SESAR’s expectations for Exploratory Research at TRL 2, with appropriate reliance on expert review and desk-based 
+validation rather than prototypes or flight trials. 
+The proposal initiates at less comprehensive TRL2 than the target TRL. So, the initial TRL is unclear lying between 1 and 2. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+Research data management is briefly described and appropriately built into the methodology. The data management plan (DMP) is planned early (M3) with an 
+update at M12 and is embedded in the Project Management Plan (PMP), ensuring findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR) data, repository use and 
+open formats for primarily textual/desk-study outputs in line with open science practices. The gender dimension is considered: there is no gender dimension in the 
+research content. 
+There is a clear awareness of the state of the art, and the proposal builds on prior research in the area - SEC-AIRSPACE on cyber security, FARO on resilience 
+metrics, and FCDI.
+Criterion 2 - Impact
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )3.00
+ 101290642/STRATUS-28/01/2026-09:52:41 2 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968292 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 3 ===
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the call material. 
+- Suitability and quality of the measures in terms of maximising expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation 
+(D&E) plan, including communication activities.
+The proposal does not demonstrate methodological depth for ensuring credible, transferable, and measurable results within the SESAR Performance Framework. 
+This is a shortcoming. 
+There is insufficient indication of which Key Performance Areas (KPAs) the proposed activities address. The performance metrics and assessment methods are not 
+adequately defined. This is a shortcoming. 
+As a result, it is not clear how the project’s outcomes will contribute to measurable improvements in ATM performance or align with SESAR’s overarching 
+performance ambitions. This hampers the credibility of the expected impact and the traceability of results within the SESAR Innovation Pipeline. This is a 
+shortcoming. 
+Broader societal and economic impacts are clearly articulated, even if brief. 
+The proposal provides only a general outline of the dissemination, communication, and exploitation (DCE) plan. Beyond listing a project website, workshops, and 
+participation in relevant events, there are insufficient details on objectives, target audiences, key messages, communication channels, or timelines. This is a minor 
+shortcoming. 
+The exploitation activities are not adequately described. The strategy for identifying or engaging potential users or for translating project results in concrete uptake 
+pathways in unclear. The limited level of detail hampers the project’s capacity to maximise visibility, stakeholder engagement, and long-term impact. This is a 
+shortcoming.
+Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )3.40
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Quality and effectiveness of the work plan and assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources 
+overall. 
+- Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.
+The proposal's work plan deliverables and target dates are consistent with the SESAR 3 JU Project Handbook requirements. 
+The work packages themselves do not sufficiently include any defined tasks or sub-tasks, which does not provide sufficient details on how the work will be 
+organised and implemented in practice, who will be responsible for specific activities, and how effort will be distributed among partners. This is a shortcoming. 
+The insufficiently described tasks hamper the traceability between objectives, activities, and expected outputs, reducing the overall credibility of the implementation 
+plan and the ability to monitor progress effectively. This is a shortcoming. 
+The exit maturity gate is specified at M22 with the production of the Exploratory Research Report (ERR, D4.3), although no explicit Exit Maturity Gate is identified 
+at TRL-2. This is a shortcoming. 
+Some of the participants have already worked together on relevant projects (i.e., ECHO and ECHO2) - this is evidence of a consortium that has the ingredients to 
+collaborate well and have the necessary expertise to achieve the proposal objectives.
+Scope of the application
+Status:  Yes
+Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope)
+Not provided
+Exceptional funding
+A third country participant/international organisation not listed in may exceptionally receive funding if the General Annex to the Main Work Programme 
+their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research 
+infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more 
+information, see the ) HE programme guide 
+Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. 
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC)
+Status:  No
+ 101290642/STRATUS-28/01/2026-09:52:41 3 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968292 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 4 ===
+If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the 
+reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information.
+Not provided
+Use of human embryos
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project.
+Not provided
+Activities excluded from funding
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain.
+Not provided
+Do no significant harm principle
+Status:  Yes
+If Partially/No/Cannot be assessed please explain
+Not provided
+Exclusive focus on civil applications
+Status:  Yes
+If NO, please explain.
+Not provided
+Artificial Intelligence
+Status:  No
+If YES, the technical robustness of the proposed system must be evaluated under the appropriate criterion.
+Overall comments
+Not provided
+ 101290642/STRATUS-28/01/2026-09:52:41 4 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968292 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 5 ===
+ 
+ 
+Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
+ 
+ 
+  
+ 
+This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your 
+organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally 
+sealed. 
+This digital signature mechanism, using a public -private key pair mechanism, uniquely 
+binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European 
+Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integr ity. 
+Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your 
+organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. 
+Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic 
+signature, which can b e verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation 
+symbol. 
+More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders 
+Portal.  
+(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) 
+ 

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/GA Declaration - GAP-101288550 - 870906450.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+DECLARATION OF HONOUR FOR BENEFICIARIES (DoH) (GRANTS)
+I, the undersigned:
+for natural persons: in my own name
+or
+for legal persons1: representing the following entity:
+SkyNav Europe
+Rue Coppens 16
+Brussels 1000
+Belgium
+PIC 870906450
+hereby confirm
+that (subject to the additional declarations below):
+1 — The information provided for action 101288550 — SCAN is correct and complete.
+2 — The information concerning the legal status in the Participant Register for me/my organisation
+is correct and complete.
+3 — I/my organisation commit to comply2 with the eligibility criteria and all other conditions set
+out in the call conditions — for the entire duration of the action.
+4 — I/my organisation:
+– are committed to participate in the action
+– have stable and sufficient sources of funding to maintain the activities throughout the
+action and to provide any counterpart funding necessary
+– have or will have the necessary resources needed to implement the action
+– acknowledge to be fully responsible for my affiliated entities which participate in the
+action
+– for research actions: are committed to comply with the highest standards of ethical
+principles and research integrity and confirm that the work is free of plagiarism
+– for actions involving EU classified information (EUCI): acknowledge that any sensitive
+information or material that qualifies as EU classified information under Commission
+1 This includes ‘entities without legal personality’ under Article 200(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the
+European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget
+of the Union (recast) (‘EU Financial Regulation’) (OJ L, 2024/2509, 26.9.2024).
+2 ‘Commit to comply’ means complying now and for the duration of the grant.
+1
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+Decision 2015/4443 must be handled in accordance with specific rules and follow the
+instructions given by the EU
+– for coordinators of multi-beneficiary actions: are committed to act as the coordinator for
+this action.
+5a — For applicants from non-EU countries: I/my organisation:
+– undertake to comply with the obligations under the agreement and to:
+– respect general principles (including fundamental rights, values and ethical
+principles, environmental and labour standards, rules on classified information,
+intellectual property rights, visibility of funding and protection of personal data)
+– for the submission of financial certificates under the agreement: use qualified external
+auditors which are independent and comply with comparable standards as those set
+out in EU Directive 2006/43/EC
+– for controls under the agreement: allow for checks, reviews, audits and investigations
+(including on-the-spot checks, visits and inspections) by the granting authority, the
+European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and
+the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and any persons mandated by them
+– and confirm that:
+– we can be subject to the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts.
+5b — For applicants which are international organisations: I/my organisation:
+– undertake to comply with the obligations under the agreement and to:
+– respect general principles (including fundamental rights, values and ethical
+principles, environmental and labour standards, rules on classified information,
+intellectual property rights, visibility of funding and protection of personal data)
+– for the submission of certificates under the agreement: use either independent public
+officers or external auditors which comply with comparable standards as those set
+out in EU Directive 2006/43/EC
+– for controls under the agreement: allow for checks, reviews, audits and investigations
+(including on-the-spot checks, visits and inspections) by the granting authority, the
+European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and
+the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and any persons mandated by them
+– acknowledge that nothing in the agreement will be interpreted as a waiver of the
+organisation’s privileges or immunities, as accorded by its constituent documents or
+international law
+– acknowledge that special rules apply concerning applicable law and dispute settlement
+3 See Commission Decision 2015/544/EU,Euratom of 13 March 2015 on the security rules for protecting EU classified
+information (OJ L 72, 17.3.2015, p. 53).
+2
+
+=== PAGE 3 ===
+– acknowledge that if the organisation has concluded a framework agreement with the EU,
+it may rely on the provisions set out in that framework agreement, provided that they
+do not call into question the decision awarding the agreement or breach the principle of
+equal treatment of applicants or beneficiaries.
+6 — For applicants which are subject to Articles 138 and 139 of the EU Financial Regulation: I/my
+organisation:
+– are NOT subject to an administrative sanction  (i.e. exclusion or financial penalty
+decision)4
+I/my organisation (or persons with unlimited liability for debts):
+– are NOT in one of the following exclusion situations5:
+– bankrupt, being wound up, having the affairs administered by the courts, entered
+into an arrangement with creditors, suspended business activities or subject to any
+other similar proceedings or procedures
+– in breach of social security or tax obligations
+I/my organisation (or persons having powers of representation, decision-making or control,
+beneficial owners or persons who are essential for the award/implementation of the action):
+– are NOT in one of the following exclusion situations6:
+– guilty of grave professional misconduct7
+– committed fraud, corruption, links to a criminal organisation, money laundering,
+terrorism-related crimes (including terrorism financing), child labour or human
+trafficking
+– shown significant deficiencies in complying with main obligations under an EU
+procurement contract, grant agreement, prize, expert contract, or similar
+– guilty of irregularities within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation
+No 2988/95
+– created under a different jurisdiction with the intent to circumvent fiscal, social
+or other legal obligations in the country of origin (including creation of another
+entity with this purpose).
+4 See Article 138 EU Financial Regulation 2024/2509.
+5 See Articles 138 and 143 EU Financial Regulation 2024/2509.
+6 See Articles 138 and 143 EU Financial Regulation 2024/2509.
+7 ‘Professional misconduct’ includes, in particular, the following: violation of ethical standards of the profession;
+wrongful conduct with impact on professional credibility; breach of generally accepted professional ethical standards;
+false declarations/misrepresentation of information; participation in a cartel or other agreement distorting competition;
+violation of IPR; attempting to influence decision-making processes by taking advantage, through misrepresentation,
+of a conflict of interests, or to obtain confidential information from public authorities to gain an advantage; incitement
+to discrimination, hatred or violence or similar activities contrary to the EU values where negatively affecting or risking
+to affect the performance of a legal commitment.
+3
+
+=== PAGE 4 ===
+– intentionally and without proper justification resisted 8 an investigation, check or
+audit carried out by an EU authorising officer (or their representative or auditor),
+OLAF, the EPPO, or the European Court of Auditors.
+7 — I/my organisation are NOT subject to a conflict of interest in connection with this grant and
+will notify — without delay — any situation which could give rise to a conflict of interests.
+8 — I/my organisation have NOT and will NOT, neither directly nor indirectly, grant, seek, obtain
+or accept any advantage in connection with this grant that would constitute an illegal practice
+or involve corruption.
+9 — I/my organisation havenot received any other EU grant  for this action and will give notice
+of any future EU grants related to this action AND of any EU operating grant(s) 9 given to my
+organisation.
+10 — I/my organisation are aware that false declarations  may lead to rejection, suspension,
+termination or reduction of the grant and to administrative sanctions (i.e. financial penalties and/
+or exclusion from all future EU funding, such as grants, tenders, prizes, contribution agreements,
+expert contracts, etc).
+and acknowledge
+that:
+1 — The grant will be signed and managed electronically, through the Funding & Tenders Portal
+Electronic Exchange System (accessible via your Funding & Tenders Portal account10).
+2 — Access and use of this system is subject to the Funding & Tenders Portal Terms & Conditions11.
+3 — Personal data submitted or otherwise collected by the EU will be subject to the Funding &
+Tenders Portal Privacy Statement12.
+4 — Payments under the grant are done at consortium-level, through the coordinator, and will be
+automatically lowered if one of the consortium members has outstanding debts towards the
+EU (granting authority or other EU bodies). Such debts will be offset in accordance with the
+conditions set out in the grant agreement.
+8 ‘Resisting an investigation, check or audit’ means carrying out actions with the goal or effect of preventing, hindering
+or delaying the conduct of any of the activities needed to perform the investigation, check or audit, such as refusing
+to grant the necessary access to its premises or any other areas used for business purposes, concealing or refusing to
+disclose information or providing false information.
+9 See Article 183 EU Financial Regulation 2024/2509.
+10 Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/myarea/projects.
+11 Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/ftp/tc_en.pdf.
+12 Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/legalnotice.
+4
+
+=== PAGE 5 ===
+SIGNATURE
+For the applicant:
+[--TGSMark#signature-870906450_75_210--]
+5
+
+=== PAGE 6 ===
+ 
+ 
+Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
+ 
+ 
+  
+ 
+This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your 
+organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally 
+sealed. 
+This digital signature mechanism, using a public -private key pair mechanism, uniquely 
+binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European 
+Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integr ity. 
+Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your 
+organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. 
+Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic 
+signature, which can b e verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation 
+symbol. 
+More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders 
+Portal.  
+(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) 
+ 

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/Invitation Letter including the information out of ranking.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Ovidiu DUMITRACHE
+EUROCONTROL - EUROPEAN
+ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF
+AIR NAVIGATION
+Rue de la Fusée 96
+1130 BRUXELLES
+BELGIUM
+Subject: Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-IR-02
+Project: 101288550 — SCAN
+GAP invitation letter
+Dear Applicant,
+I am writing in connection with your proposal for the above-mentioned call.
+Having completed the evaluation, we are pleased to inform you that your proposal has passed this
+phase and that we would now like to start grant preparation.
+Please find enclosed the evaluation summary report (ESR) for your proposal.
+Invitation to grant preparation
+Grant preparation will be based on the following:
+1. Project:
+Project number and name:  101288550 — SCAN
+Topic:  HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-IR-02-WA3-2 — Enhanced CNS capabilities
+Type of action:  HORIZON JU Research and Innovation Actions
+Requested grant amount (proposal):  9 686 590.70 EUR
+Maximum grant amount (after evaluation):  9 686 590.70 EUR
+Project duration:   36  months
+2. Timetable and deadlines:
+Preparation of grant data and annexes:  3 weeks after receiving this letter
+Declaration of honour (DoH):  6 weeks after receiving this letter
+Signature:  within 3 months after receiving this letter (planned date)
+1
+Ref. Ares(2026)1020943 - 29/01/2026
+
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+The grant agreement data and annexes (description of the action, estimated budget, etc.) must be based on the
+proposal you submitted and the clarifications we requested (if any). You may normally NOT make changes to the
+project/project budget/consortium composition (except if required by us). Please immediately inform your project
+officer if you need to make a change (e.g. bankruptcy, etc.).
+Once we have checked the information you have encoded, you will have 2 weeks to submit your final version
+— to bring it in line with our comments.
+3. Participant Register
+All partners participating as beneficiaries or affiliated entities must be registered and validated in the Participant
+Register.
+Please note that some of your legal and financial data in this Register is read-only and can be updated only by
+a LEAR (via the Portal My Organisation(s) page). If you do not already have one, we will contact you soon for
+their nomination.
+4. How to contact us
+Project officer: Nefeli POLITI STERGIOU
+Grant preparation and grant signature will be done exclusively through the Funding & Tenders Portal (login via
+your Portal account). The Portal allows you to upload documents, send Messages and Formal Notifications. Avoid
+contacting us via other means (email, letter, etc.); this will allow us to keep the full project file all in the same place.
+Please note that affiliated entities cannot directly access the Portal Grant Management System; grant preparation
+will therefore have to be done by their beneficiaries for them.
+5. Other
+Detailed guidance on the Grant Agreement Preparation steps will follow up within the next 2 weeks at latest.
+For more information on grant preparation, see the Online Manual.
+ Please note that this letter does NOT constitute a formal commitment for funding . The final
+decision on your project (including the grant amount to be awarded) can be taken only later, when we
+have finalised grant preparation and the checks that still need to be done (LEAR appointment, legal
+entity validation, financial capacity assessment, non-exclusion check, ethics review, security review,
+etc.).
+We will try to proceed as swiftly as possible, but we rely on your good cooperation. If you do not
+reply to our requests or repeatedly miss grant preparation deadlines, we will consider that you are no
+longer interested in our grant (and reject your proposal).
+More information on the evaluation of the call is published in a topic update in the Funding & Tenders
+Portal.
+I would be grateful if you could inform everyone involved in your proposal of this letter.
+For any questions, please contact us via your Funding & Tenders Portal account > My Project(s) >
+Actions > Manage Project > Process communications.
+2
+
+=== PAGE 3 ===
+Yours faithfully,
+Andreas BOSCHEN
+Executive Director
+Enclosure: Evaluation summary report (ESR)
+3

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/Rejection decision Information Letter - QUANTAIR.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Andreas SPÖRL
+DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUR LUFT - UND
+RAUMFAHRT EV
+LINDER HOHE
+51147 KOLN
+GERMANY
+Subject: Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-ER-03
+Project: 101289612 — QUANTAIR
+Rejection letter
+Dear Applicant,
+I am writing in connection with your proposal for the above-mentioned call.
+Having completed the evaluation, we regret to inform you that your proposal, despite its merits, can
+unfortunately not be funded, given the budgetary resources available for the call.
+Please find enclosed the evaluation summary report (ESR).
+More information on the evaluation of the call is published in a topic update in the Funding & Tenders
+Portal.
+I would be grateful if you could inform everyone involved in your proposal of this letter.
+We thank you for your interest and hope that you will not be discouraged from applying to our calls
+in the future.
+Yours faithfully,
+Andreas BOSCHEN
+Executive Director
+Enclosure: Evaluation summary report (ESR)
+1
+Ref. Ares(2026)1020198 - 29/01/2026
+
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+Information on the means of redress
+If you believe that the rejection of your proposal was based on an error in the selection procedure, you can submit a:
+– request for admissibility/eligibility or evaluation review (redress review) — within 30 days of receiving this letter
+(via your Funding & Tenders Portal account > My Proposal(s) > Actions > Follow-up > Launch new interaction
+with the EU)
+– action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU — within 2 months of receiving the letter (by application to the
+EU General Court).
+ Please be aware that complaints against decisions taken by an EU executive agency or other EU body must be directed
+against that agency/body, NOT against the European Commission.
+ You are free to choose any of the above means of redress. However, in the interest of good administration and procedural
+efficiency, it is recommended to use first the available administrative review procedures (if any). The objective of these
+procedures is to re-examine the circumstances of the selection procedure and to reach a final decision on your application.
+Deadlines for further redress will therefore run as from when you receive our reply with the final position.
+For more information and conditions (including on other types of complaints, such as to the European Ombudsman, etc),
+please see the Online Manual and IT How To.
+2

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/Rejection decision Information Letter - SPARTA.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Ovidiu DUMITRACHE
+EUROCONTROL - EUROPEAN
+ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF
+AIR NAVIGATION
+Rue de la Fusée 96
+1130 BRUXELLES
+BELGIUM
+Subject: Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-IR-02
+Project: 101288039 — SPARTA
+Rejection letter
+Dear Applicant,
+I am writing in connection with your proposal for the above-mentioned call.
+Having completed the evaluation, we regret to inform you that your proposal, despite its merits, can
+unfortunately not be funded, given the budgetary resources available for the call.
+Please find enclosed the evaluation summary report (ESR).
+More information on the evaluation of the call is published in a topic update in the Funding & Tenders
+Portal.
+I would be grateful if you could inform everyone involved in your proposal of this letter.
+We thank you for your interest and hope that you will not be discouraged from applying to our calls
+in the future.
+Yours faithfully,
+Andreas BOSCHEN
+Executive Director
+Enclosure: Evaluation summary report (ESR)
+1
+Ref. Ares(2026)1020589 - 29/01/2026
+
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+Information on the means of redress
+If you believe that the rejection of your proposal was based on an error in the selection procedure, you can submit a:
+– request for admissibility/eligibility or evaluation review (redress review) — within 30 days of receiving this letter
+(via your Funding & Tenders Portal account > My Proposal(s) > Actions > Follow-up > Launch new interaction
+with the EU)
+– action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU — within 2 months of receiving the letter (by application to the
+EU General Court).
+ Please be aware that complaints against decisions taken by an EU executive agency or other EU body must be directed
+against that agency/body, NOT against the European Commission.
+ You are free to choose any of the above means of redress. However, in the interest of good administration and procedural
+efficiency, it is recommended to use first the available administrative review procedures (if any). The objective of these
+procedures is to re-examine the circumstances of the selection procedure and to reach a final decision on your application.
+Deadlines for further redress will therefore run as from when you receive our reply with the final position.
+For more information and conditions (including on other types of complaints, such as to the European Ombudsman, etc),
+please see the Online Manual and IT How To.
+2

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/Rejection decision Information Letter - STRATUS.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Ovidiu DUMITRACHE
+EUROCONTROL - EUROPEAN
+ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF
+AIR NAVIGATION
+Rue de la Fusée 96
+1130 BRUXELLES
+BELGIUM
+Subject: Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-ER-03
+Project: 101290642 — STRATUS
+Rejection letter
+Dear Applicant,
+I am writing in connection with your proposal for the above-mentioned call.
+Having completed the evaluation, we regret to inform you that your proposal, despite its merits, can
+unfortunately not be funded, given the budgetary resources available for the call.
+Please find enclosed the evaluation summary report (ESR).
+More information on the evaluation of the call is published in a topic update in the Funding & Tenders
+Portal.
+I would be grateful if you could inform everyone involved in your proposal of this letter.
+We thank you for your interest and hope that you will not be discouraged from applying to our calls
+in the future.
+Yours faithfully,
+Andreas BOSCHEN
+Executive Director
+Enclosure: Evaluation summary report (ESR)
+1
+Ref. Ares(2026)1020185 - 29/01/2026
+
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+Information on the means of redress
+If you believe that the rejection of your proposal was based on an error in the selection procedure, you can submit a:
+– request for admissibility/eligibility or evaluation review (redress review) — within 30 days of receiving this letter
+(via your Funding & Tenders Portal account > My Proposal(s) > Actions > Follow-up > Launch new interaction
+with the EU)
+– action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU — within 2 months of receiving the letter (by application to the
+EU General Court).
+ Please be aware that complaints against decisions taken by an EU executive agency or other EU body must be directed
+against that agency/body, NOT against the European Commission.
+ You are free to choose any of the above means of redress. However, in the interest of good administration and procedural
+efficiency, it is recommended to use first the available administrative review procedures (if any). The objective of these
+procedures is to re-examine the circumstances of the selection procedure and to reach a final decision on your application.
+Deadlines for further redress will therefore run as from when you receive our reply with the final position.
+For more information and conditions (including on other types of complaints, such as to the European Ombudsman, etc),
+please see the Online Manual and IT How To.
+2

docs/Tenders/sky_nav_sesar_winning_proposal_template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,221 @@
+# SkyNav SESAR Winning Proposal Template
+
+#Literature #StrategicStudies
+
+---
+
+## 1. Proposal Overview
+
+**Project Title:**
+
+**Acronym:**
+
+**Call / Topic:**
+
+**Duration:**
+
+**Coordinator:**
+
+**Consortium Partners:**
+
+---
+
+## 2. Strategic Framing
+
+### Problem Statement
+- What systemic European ATM / HAO / STO problem are we solving?
+- Why is this problem urgent now?
+
+### Strategic Context
+- Alignment with SESAR / ATM Master Plan
+- Link to ECHO / ECHO2 / prior work
+
+### Value Proposition
+- What capability gap are we filling?
+- Why SkyNav is uniquely positioned
+
+---
+
+## 3. Objectives
+
+### Primary Objective
+- Clear, single-line mission outcome
+
+### Supporting Objectives
+- Obj 1:
+- Obj 2:
+- Obj 3:
+
+---
+
+## 4. Concept of Operations (CONOPS)
+
+### Operational Concept
+- How the system operates at network level
+
+### Key Features
+- Real-time integration
+- Situational awareness
+- Decision support
+
+### Operational Impact
+- Safety improvement
+- Efficiency gains
+- Regulatory enablement
+
+---
+
+## 5. Technical Approach
+
+### Architecture
+- Modular design
+- API-based integration
+- Scalable framework
+
+### Core Modules
+- Data ingestion
+- Processing / analytics
+- User interface
+
+### Innovation Elements
+- What is new vs current state
+
+---
+
+## 6. Work Packages (WPs)
+
+### WP1 – Project Management
+- Governance
+- Reporting
+
+### WP2 – Requirements & CONOPS
+- Stakeholder engagement
+- Operational scenarios
+
+### WP3 – System Design & Development
+- Architecture
+- Prototype
+
+### WP4 – Validation & Demonstration
+- Simulation
+- Live trials
+
+### WP5 – Dissemination & Exploitation
+- Publications
+- Industry engagement
+
+---
+
+## 7. Consortium Structure
+
+### Partner Roles
+- Coordinator:
+- SkyNav: Regulatory / operational / software
+- ANSPs: Validation
+- Industry: Technology
+
+### Value of Each Partner
+- Why each is essential
+
+---
+
+## 8. Impact
+
+### Scientific Impact
+- Advancement of ATM / HAO knowledge
+
+### Operational Impact
+- Improved safety and coordination
+
+### Economic Impact
+- Market creation
+- Cost reduction
+
+### Regulatory Impact
+- Policy influence
+
+---
+
+## 9. Exploitation Strategy
+
+### Commercialisation Path
+- SaaS integration (SkyLex / SkySafe)
+
+### Revenue Model
+- Subscription
+- Consulting follow-on
+
+### Market Entry
+- EU regulators
+- ANSPs
+
+---
+
+## 10. Risk Management
+
+| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
+|------|------------|--------|-----------|
+| Regulatory delays |  |  |  |
+| Technical complexity |  |  |  |
+| Consortium alignment |  |  |  |
+
+---
+
+## 11. Implementation Timeline
+
+### Phase 1
+- Setup
+
+### Phase 2
+- Development
+
+### Phase 3
+- Validation
+
+### Phase 4
+- Deployment
+
+---
+
+## 12. Key Success Factors
+
+- Strong consortium
+- Clear role for SkyNav
+- Alignment with SESAR priorities
+- Demonstrable operational impact
+
+---
+
+## 13. Common Pitfalls (Avoid)
+
+- Overly technical detail
+- Weak partner roles
+- Lack of system-level framing
+- No clear exploitation path
+
+---
+
+## 14. Final Checklist
+
+- [ ] Aligned with SESAR priorities
+- [ ] Clear system-level impact
+- [ ] Strong consortium logic
+- [ ] Defined SkyNav advantage
+- [ ] Commercialisation pathway clear
+
+---
+
+## Reflective Prompt
+
+How does this proposal translate SkyNav’s regulatory and operational expertise into a scalable, system-level capability that creates long-term competitive advantage beyond the research programme?
+
+---
+
+## Related Resources
+
+- SESAR ATM Master Plan
+- ECHO / ECHO2 documentation
+- SkyNav Strategic Plan
+
+---
+