Competition Regulations · C2.10.2 New arrangements regarding Development Class portfolio page...

Competition RegulationsLevel 2: ROV, Level 3: Spatial Design & 4: Submarine Classes

2020

Proudly Supported by An initiative of

Version 1.0

2020 Levels 2, 3 & 4 Competition Regulations2

AUTHORISED AGENTThe SUBS in Schools STEM Challenge is an initiative of and managed in Australia by Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd. All rights

reserved.

Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd.PO Box 136

Castle Hill NSW 1765P: 61 2 9620 9944F: 61 2 8079 0622

E: [email protected]: www.rea.org.au

COPYRIGHT NOTICEThis document, all its contents (including images, text, procedures) are copyright 2020

Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd.All rights reserved.

REPRODUCTIONThis document may only be reproduced by schools registered in the SUBS in Schools STEM Challenge in Australia. Non-participating

schools in Australia and overseas must first seek permission from Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd. prior to reproducing.To register your school in the SUBS in Schools STEM Challenge at no cost, click here.

ALTERATIONSRe-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd. reserves the right to alter any specifications and documentation associated with the

‘Challenge’ without prior notice.

CONTRIBUTORSRe-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd. acknowledges the valuable contributions of the Australian Government Department of

Defence and SAAB Australia in the development of this Challenge

Proudly Supported by

Introduction / Authorised Agent

2020 Levels 2, 3 & 4 Competition Regulations 3

Table of Contents | Introduction

TABLE OF CONTENTSPREFACE - SUMMARY OF MAIN REVISIONS FROM REVIEW OF 2019 SEASON ��5

ARTICLE C1 - DEFINITIONS ��6C1.1 Australian Competition Season ............................................................................................................ 6C1.2 Australian Competition Calendar .......................................................................................................... 6C1.3 State & National Finals ......................................................................................................................... 6C1.4 SUBS in Schools National Coordinator ............................................................................................... 6C1.5 Language Used .................................................................................................................................... 6C1.6 Parc Fermé ........................................................................................................................................... 6C1.7 Event Programme ................................................................................................................................. 6C1.8 Judging Schedule ................................................................................................................................. 6C1.9 Terms and Conditions for Entry ............................................................................................................ 6C1.10 Regulations Documents ........................................................................................................................ 6C1.11 Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) ...................................................................................................... 7C1.12 Trial Event ............................................................................................................................................ 7C1.13 Water Craft1 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7

C1.14 Project Elements ................................................................................................................................... 7C1.15 Engineering Drawings ........................................................................................................................... 7C1.16 Penalties ............................................................................................................................................... 7C1.17 Competition Levels .............................................................................................................................. 7C1.18 Booth Shell ........................................................................................................................................... 8C1.19 Trade Display ........................................................................................................................................ 8

ARTICLE C2 - GENERAL REGULATIONS ��8C2.1 Representative Team Selection ............................................................................................................ 8C2.2 Cost of Participation .............................................................................................................................. 8C2.3 Team & Project Entry Conditions .......................................................................................................... 8C2.4 Competition Procedural Regulations .................................................................................................. 10C2.5 Team Responsibilities ..........................................................................................................................11C2.6 Role and Responsibility of Supervising Teacher. ................................................................................ 12C2.7 Team partnerships/collaborations ....................................................................................................... 12C2.8 REA Corporate Partner Logos and National Support ......................................................................... 12C2.9 Mandatory Project Elements Submitted at Event Check-in ................................................................ 13C2.10 Project Judging Elements Detailed Information .................................................................................. 14C2.11 Project Elements Retained by REA Foundation Ltd. .......................................................................... 15

ARTICLE C3 - COMPETITION AND JUDGING FORMAT ��16C3.1 Event Programme ............................................................................................................................... 16C3.2 Judging Schedule ............................................................................................................................... 16C3.3 Judging Panels ................................................................................................................................... 16C3.4 Who Attends Judging? ........................................................................................................................ 16C3.5 Students with Special Needs .............................................................................................................. 16C3.6 Judging Categories ............................................................................................................................. 16C3.7 Point Allocations ................................................................................................................................. 16C3.8 Judging Score Cards .......................................................................................................................... 17C3.9 Critical regulations .............................................................................................................................. 17

ARTICLE C4 - SPECIFICATIONS JUDGING (80 POINTS) ��18C4.1 General Information ............................................................................................................................ 18C4.2 Specification Judging Decision Appeals ............................................................................................. 18

ARTICLE C5 - ENGINEERING JUDGING (200/ 150 POINTS) ��19C5.1 General Information ............................................................................................................................ 19C5.2 Key Criteria ......................................................................................................................................... 19

ARTICLE C6 - PORTFOLIO JUDGING (150 POINTS) ��20C6.1 General Information ............................................................................................................................ 20C6.2 Key Criteria ......................................................................................................................................... 22

ARTICLE C7 - MARKETING JUDGING (190/205 POINTS) ��22C7.1 General Information ............................................................................................................................ 22C7.2 Key Criteria ......................................................................................................................................... 23C7.3 Trade Display Design Requirements .................................................................................................. 23C7.4 Set Up ................................................................................................................................................. 24


ARTICLE C8 - VERBAL PRESENTATION JUDGING (165 POINTS)��27C8.1 General Information ............................................................................................................................ 27C8.2 Key Criteria ......................................................................................................................................... 27

ARTICLE C9 - TRIALS (200 POINTS) ��28C9.1 Trials - ROV & Submarine .................................................................................................................. 28C9.2 General Information ............................................................................................................................ 28C9.3 Level 2 Trial Procedure (ROV Class) .................................................................................................. 29C9.4 Level 2 Trial Scoring (ROV Class) ...................................................................................................... 30C9.5 Level 4 Trial Procedure (Submarine Class) ........................................................................................ 31C9.6 Level 4 Trial Scoring ........................................................................................................................... 33C9.7 Pre-Competition Testing Evidence ...................................................................................................... 34

ARTICLE C10 - WATER CRAFT REPAIRS / SERVICING ��34C10.1 Water craft repairs .............................................................................................................................. 34

ARTICLE C11 - GRIEVANCES ��34C11.1 Procedure ........................................................................................................................................... 34C11.2 Non Specifications Related ................................................................................................................. 34C11.3 Judge’s Decision ................................................................................................................................. 35

ARTICLE C12 - JUDGES ��35C12.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 35C12.2 Chair of Judges ................................................................................................................................... 35C12.3 The Judging Teams ............................................................................................................................ 35C12.4 Judging Decisions ............................................................................................................................... 35

ARTICLE C13 - AWARDS ��35C13.1 Awards Celebration ............................................................................................................................ 35C13.2 Participation Recognition .................................................................................................................... 36C13.3 Prizes and Trophies ............................................................................................................................ 36C13.4 List of Awards to be Presented ........................................................................................................... 36

ARTICLE C14 - APPENDICES ��38C14.1 Development Class Trade Displays .................................................................................................... 38C14.2 Shell Scheme Trade Display ............................................................................................................... 39C14.3 Awards Matrix - Level 2 & 4 ROV & SUBS ......................................................................................... 40C14.4 Awards Matrix - Level 3 Spatial Design .............................................................................................. 41C14.5 Development Class Portfolio Content Page Plan ............................................................................... 42C14.6 Professional Class Portfolio Content Page Plan ................................................................................. 43C14.7 Portfolio Page Content Plan - Level 3 Spatial Design ........................................................................ 44C14.8 Criteria 1 - Specifications Compliance Score Card (Level 2: ROV Class) .......................................... 45C14.9 Criteria 1 - Specifications Compliance Score Card (Level 4: Submarine Class) (1 of 2) .................... 46C14.10 Criteria 1 - Specifications Compliance Score Card (Level 4: Submarine Class) (2 of 2) .................... 47C14.11 Criteria 2 - Computer Aided Design Score Card (Level 3: Spatial Design Class) ............................... 48C14.12 Criteria 2 - Computer Aided Design Score Card (Level 2: ROV & Level 4: Submarine Class) ........... 49C14.13 Criteria 3 - Engineering: Manufacturing Score Card (Level 2: ROV & Level 4: Submarine Class) ..... 50C14.14 Criteria 4 - Engineering: Design Process Score Card (Level 3: Spatial Design Class) ...................... 51C14.15 Criteria 4 - Engineering: Design Process Score Card (Level 2: ROV & Level 4: Submarine Class) .. 52C14.16 Criteria 5 - Portfolio: Project Management Score Card (All Classes) ................................................. 53C14.17 Criteria 6 - Portfolio: Portfolio Design Score Card (All Classes) ......................................................... 54C14.18 Criteria 7 - Marketing: Branding Score Card (All Classes) ................................................................. 55C14.19 Criteria 8 - Marketing: Trade Display Score Card (Level 3: Spatial Design Class) ............................. 56C14.20 Criteria 8 - Marketing: Trade Display Score Card (Level 2: ROV & Level 4: Submarine Class) ......... 57C14.21 Criteria 9 - Presentation: Technique Score Card (All Classes) ........................................................... 58C14.22 Criteria 10 - Presentation: Content Score Card (All Classes) ............................................................. 59C14.23 Criteria 11 - Trials: Rov Trial Score Card (Level 2: ROV Class) ......................................................... 60C14.24 Criteria 11 - Trials: Subs Trial Score Card (Level 4: Submarine Class) .............................................. 61

Introduction | Table of Contents


PREFACE - SUMMARY OF MAIN REVISIONS FROM REVIEW OF 2019 SEASONThis document only contains ‘Competition Regulations’. A separate document encompasses the ‘Technical Regulations’.This preface provides an overview of all competition related regulations that have been revised from the 2019 season’s regulations.It is each team’s responsibility to thoroughly read this document in order to identify wording changes and to understand any impact this may have on their project.All changes are identified within the document by using red underlined textThese regulations will be valid for the 2020 State and National Finals.ARTICLE C1 - DEFINITIONSC1.18 New definition of Booth ShellC1.19 New definition of Trade DisplayARTICLE C2 - GENERAL REGULATIONSC2.3.7 Updated arrangements for Development Class portfolios at National Finals.C2.4.1.3 Updated to reflect need for electronic submission only.C2.4.1.6 New Student Code of Conduct signed form required.C2.4.2.2 Updated wording reflecting requirement for electronic submission.C2.7.2 Updated wording to include requirement for student original work.C2.9.2 Updated wording to reflect Project Elements required at Event Check-in and removal of requirement for finishing evidence.C2.9.4 New requirement for Project Elements to be submitted electronically.C2.9.5 New penalty for teams failing to submit electronically by the published deadlineC2.10.2 New arrangements regarding Development Class portfolio page requirements at National FinalsARTICLE C3 - COMPETITION AND JUDGING FORMATC3.7 Updated points allocationsARTICLE C4 - SPECIFICATIONS JUDGINGC4.1.4.2 Updated with reminder to bring own tools to rectificationARTICLE C5 - ENGINEERING JUDGING - NIL CHANGESARTICLE C6 - PORTFOLIO JUDGINGC6 Updated overall points valueC6.1.3.1 New arrangements regarding Development Class portfolio page requirements at National FinalsC6.1.5 New advice regarding ReferencingC6.1.6 New advice and arrangements relating to introduction of anti-plagiarism softwareC6.1.7 New penalty for late electronic submission of team Project Elements.ARTICLE C7 - MARKETING JUDGINGC7 Updated overall pointsC7.2.2 Updated Trade Display pointsC7.2.2.2 New assessment criteria addedC7.3 Various wording updatesC7.4.1 - C7.4.2 New section for packaging requirements and updated wording for assembly of trade displaysC7.4.3 - C7.4.4 Minor updated wording through these sectionsC7.4.5 New penalty for non compliance with new packaging requirementsARTICLE C8 - VERBAL PRESENTATION JUDGING - NIL CHANGESARTICLE C9 - SEA TRIAL - NIL CHANGESARTICLE C10 - WATER CRAFT REPAIRS / SERVICING - NIL CHANGESARTICLE C11 - GRIEVANCES - NIL CHANGESARTICLE C12 - JUDGES - NIL CHANGESARTICLE C13 - AWARDSC13.4.4 Inclusion of Best Newcomer Award. Exclusion of 5.8 in calculating Best Managed Enterprise AwardARTICLE C14 - APPENDICESC14.1 DEVELOPMENT CLASS TRADE DISPLAYS - Updated wordingC14.2 BOOTH SHELL SCHEME - Updated name and inclusion of shaded Staging VolumeC14.3 - C14.4 AWARDS MATRIX - Criteria 5 Project Management - Separation of dual criteria , enaming of

5.4 & exclusion of 5.8 in calculating Best Managed Enterprise Award. Criteria 8 Trade Display - Inclusion of new criteria

C14.16 CRITERIA 5 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT - as per C14.3 - C14.4 & updated points valueC14.17 CRITERIA 6 - PORTFOLIO DESIGN - Removal of reference to plagiarism from 6.9C14.19 - C4.20 CRITERIA 8 - TRADE DISPLAY - New criteria 8.1, 8.8 and 8.9, updated points value

Preface - Summary of Revisions | Introduction


Introduction | Definitions

ARTICLE C1 - DEFINITIONS

C1�1 Australian Competition SeasonThe standard sequence of Australian SUBS in Schools competitions runs across a single calendar year. The State Finals held early in the year will feed to the National Final in Nov/Dec of that year. This encompasses a complete season, for which the regulations SHOULD remain constant. REA Foundation Ltd reserves the right to update / revise the regulations if deemed appropriate.

C1�2 Australian Competition CalendarThis is a calendar of State and National Final events which is available via the Finals Information tab within the SUBS in Schools menu on the REA Foundation Ltd. website, www.rea.org.au.

C1�3 State & National FinalsState and National Final events are managed by Re-Engineering Australia Ltd., are generally held over 2 - 3 days and MAY include various programmed social and competition activities. These events aim to provide all participants with an educational and personal development experience.

C1�4 SUBS in Schools National Coordinator A person employed by Re-Engineering Australia Ltd. (REA) to manage the SUBS in Schools competition in Australia.

C1�5 Language UsedThe language of the regulations is tiered. Those clauses expressed as “MUST” are mandatory and failure to comply will attract objective point and/or trials penalties and in the extreme, disqualification. Those expressed as “SHOULD” or “MAY” reflect some level of discretion and choice.Some clauses will be satisfied through team registration processes or declarations signed as complied with as part of the Challenge Terms and Conditions, whilst others will be tested through a variety of objective and subjective judging.

C1�6 Parc FerméA secure area where all trial water craft are held to prevent unauthorised handling, but to allow technical inspections to be conducted by the Judges. (Literal meaning in French of ‘closed park’).

C1�7 Event ProgrammeThis programme will detail the schedule of all competition activities from Event Registration through to the Awards Presentation.

C1�8 Judging ScheduleA separate Judging Schedule will detail the times and locations of all judging activities for all teams.

C1�9 Terms and Conditions for EntryThere are forms prepared by Re-Engineering Australia Ltd. that teams and teachers are required to complete and submit prior to an event. These forms outline a range of Terms and Conditions that MUST be complied with as part of the initial registration process and participation of all teams in the competition. Failure to submit these forms MAY result in teams being ineligible to compete at an REA Foundation Ltd. managed State or National Final. Copies of all forms can be found within the Resources/Competition Documents tab within the SUBS in Schools menu of the REA Foundation Ltd. website. For detailed information refer to ARTICLE C2.4.1.

C1�10 Regulations DocumentsC1�10�1 Issuing AuthorityREA Foundation Ltd. issues the regulations, their revisions and amendments.

C1�10�2 Competition RegulationsThis document is mainly concerned with regulations and procedures directly related to judging and the competition event. Competition Regulation articles have a ‘C’ prefix. This document SHOULD be read in conjunction with the SUBS in Schools Australian Technical Regulations document.

C1�10�3 Technical RegulationsA document separate to this one which is mainly concerned with those regulations that are directly related to SUBS in School ‘water craft’ design and manufacture. Technical Regulation articles have a ‘T’ prefix.


C1�10�4 InterpretationThe text of these regulations is in English, SHOULD any dispute arise over their interpretation, the regulation text, diagrams and any related definitions SHOULD be considered together for the purpose of interpretation.

C1�10�5 Text ClarificationAny asked questions that are deemed by REA Foundation Ltd. to be related to text needing clarification will be answered. The question and the clarification will be published on the REA Foundation Ltd. website.

C1�10�6 Supplementary Competition RegulationsOther documents MAY be issued by REA Foundation Ltd. that provide teams with further logistic and other important event information. Any supplementary regulations will be issued to all teachers and team managers of registered teams, where a valid contact email address has been supplied to REA Foundation Ltd. and published on the REA Foundation Ltd. website.

C1�11 Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s)These are portions of text that feature on the score cards within a corresponding points range. The KPI’s describe the type of evidence the Judges will be looking for in order to score the team appropriately.

C1�12 Trial Event1 Trial component of the State and National Finals, comprising multiple trials.

C1�13 Water Craft1

This can refer to the submarine, ROV or both.

C1�14 Project ElementsThese are any materials and resources that the team presents as part of its entry for any judging activity and which are submitted at event registration or as advised.

C1�15 Engineering DrawingsCAD produced drawings which SHOULD be such that, along with compatible 3D Printing files, could theoretically be used to manufacture the fully assembled water craft by a third party. Such drawings include all relevant dimensions, tolerances and material information. SUBS in Schools engineering drawings include detail to specifically identify compliance intent for the virtual cargo and control surfaces (Level 4).

C1�16 PenaltiesA range of penalties WILL be applied for non-compliance with identified competition regulations including:

C1�16�1 Point PenaltyInvoked from non-compliance with some competition regulations governing watercraft, Portfolio or Trade Display restrictions and watercraft Servicing/Substitution. These are identified as [Point Penalty]

C1�16�2 Time PenaltyInvoked from non-compliance with Technical Regulations and other Infringements which are identified as critical through the use of the danger symbol at left. These will be identified as [Time Penalty]

C1�16�3 EligibilityTeams need to meet certain eligibility criteria to compete at a State or National Final. Failure to comply with certain eligibility criteria MAY lead to disqualification from the competition or a class of competition. These are identified as [Eligibility]

C1�17 Competition Levels There are four competition classes in the Australian SUBS in Schools competition. These Competition Regulations only relate to Level 2 , 3 and 4 for State and National Finals. Separate Competition Regulations exist for Level 1.

C1�17�1 Level 2: Design and Build a Large ROVStudents are required to build a large scale ROV which is able to support ancillary items such as cameras, robot arms, probes and the like and is able to undertake specific tasks.

1 Not applicable to Level 3 Spatial Design

Definitions | Article C1


Article C1 | General Regulations

C1�17�1�1 Development Class (Years 5-9)• Students MAY only compete in this class once (excluding primary school

students).C1�17�1�2 Professional Class (Years 6-12)

• Students MAY participate in this class multiple times.

C1�17�2 Level 3: Spatial Design - Accommodation Space (Years 7 - 12)This level challenges students to design a virtual galley or berth environment for a submarine using 3D CAD and Virtual Reality software.

C1�17�3 Level 4: Design and Build a Working Model Submarine (Years 7-12)At this level students take on the design/modification of a scale submarine. In the first year, the schools would be encouraged to replicate an existing design of a model submarine. In the subsequent years the schools would be able to innovate on the existing designs to improve their submarines.

C1�18 Booth ShellA Booth Shell is a system of walling materials used in different configurations to construct either backboards for Development Class teams at State Finals or a U-Shaped exhibition style arrangement for Professional Class teams at State Finals and ALL teams at National Finals. See APPENDICES C14.1 & C14.2.

C1�19 Trade DisplayA Trade Display is the final product that teams assemble within a provided Booth Shell configuration over a 2 hour assembly period. This contains all of the structural and visual elements presented for judging.

ARTICLE C2 - GENERAL REGULATIONSC2�1 Representative Team Selection

C2�1�1 State FinalsIn all states the first level of competition for teams is usually a State Final. However, REA Foundation Ltd. reserves the right to request Regional Finals in any state IF total registrations across all classes of competition, received by the advertised deadline, exceed the maximum 24 teams allowable for any State Final.In 2020, State Finals will only be conducted in SA & WA. Teams from all other states will proceed directly to the 2020 National Final. These arrangments will be reviewed from year to year.

C2�1�2 National FinalAt each State Final, the champion teams in each class of competition and their supervising teachers (2 maximum) will be invited to represent their state at a National Final. At State Finals where only 1 – 3 teams represent an individual class of competition, the Chair of Judges will determine if the Class Champions have met the minimum standard required for a National Final. See ARTICLE C13.4 for more information.REA Foundation Ltd. reserves the right to offer ‘Wildcard’ invitations to selected teams. The number and criteria for selection is at the discretion of REA Foundation Ltd. and is not necessarily based on final rankings. Teams receiving wildcard invitations will be notified in writing within 7 days of the conclusion of the State Final.

C2�2 Cost of ParticipationC2�2�1 State and National FinalsTeams and teachers are responsible for all costs associated with participating in the competition, including registration fees, as per ARTICLE C2.3.8. This includes but is not limited to project costs, travel and accommodation and meals. Some meals MAY be provided to teams and teachers at National Finals.

C2�3 Team & Project Entry ConditionsC2�3�1 Varying the ConditionsREA Foundation Ltd. reserves the right to vary the Team & Project Entry Conditions where special circumstances exist.

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Advice]

[Advice]


C2�3�2 Team MembershipEach team registered in the Australian competition MUST consist of the following minimum and maximum number of students. Mixed gender teams are encouraged.

C2�3�2�1 Level 2: 3 to 5 team members.C2�3�2�2 Level 3: 3 to 5 team members.C2�3�2�3 Level 4: 3 to 5 team members.

C2�3�3 Collaboration TeamsThese teams will ONLY be formed from State Final teams at the invitation of REA Foundation Ltd. for National Final events. A maximum of 2 schools can participate with balanced representation from each school.

C2�3�4 Supporting or Affiliate Team MembersSupporting or affiliate team members are NOT permitted for any class or level of competition.

C2�3�5 Multiple Class Entry RestrictionsIndividual students can only compete in one competition class per event.

C2�3�6 Enrolled Full-time StudentsAll team members MUST be enrolled as full-time primary/secondary students studying at school or TAFE or home schooled (at the time of the event) to be eligible to participate in State and National Final competitions.

C2�3�7 Level 2 Large ROV: Development Class Entry RequirementsC2�3�7�1 First Time ParticipationA student MAY only compete in the Development Class if they are competing in the competition for the very first time with the exception of Year 5 students who can re-register in this class in Year 6.C2�3�7�2 Year LevelA student MAY only compete in the Development Class if they are enrolled in Years 5 - 9.C2�3�7�3 REA Supplied Large ROV KitTeams entering the challenge in this competition class MUST purchase and use the REA supplied Development Class Large ROV kit.C2�3�7�4 ROV Kit CustomisationTeams MUST adhere to the mandatory modifications. Additionally, there are optional modifications teams can consider incorporating:

1� Controller [10pt Penalty]Teams MUST use the standard controller supplied with the Development Class Kit.

2� Motors [10pt Penalty]Teams MUST ONLY use 3 motors on the Development Class ROV.

C2�3�7�5 Other Class Restrictions

1� PortfoliosDevelopment Class teams MUST restrict their Engineering and Enterprise Portfolios to 7 printed pages for State Finals. This restriction no longer applies for the National Final. For more information refer to ARTICLE C2.10.2.

2� Trade DisplayDevelopment Class teams MUST comply with certain Trade Display restrictions for State Finals. These restrictions do NOT apply to a National Final. Refer to ARTICLE C7 and APPENDIX C14.1 for content requirements and information on what is provided for each class of competition.

C2�3�8 Team Registration ConditionsEach student team MUST be registered for their first competition event by the prescribed date advertised on the SUBS in Schools web site. The REA Foundation Ltd. registration process SHALL be followed and the entry fee received by REA Foundation Ltd. before the competition date. Entry fees are non-refundable once processed. Fees only apply to State and National Finals.

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

General Regulations | Article C2


C2�3�9 Team Membership ChangesEach team MAY only make one change (i.e. add, subtract or substitute) to its membership when progressing to the next level of competition. REA Foundation Ltd. will consider up to two team membership changes between a State and National Final when extenuating circumstances exist and upon written request to the Rules Committee.

C2�3�10 Changes to Team Classification When progressing from State to National Finals, teams MUST remain in the class in which they qualified. This includes the effects of changes to team membership.

C2�3�11 Entered ProjectsEntered projects MUST be designed and produced during the current Challenge Season and the same project design MUST NOT be entered in more than one Challenge Season.

C2�4 Competition Procedural RegulationsC2�4�1 Submitting DocumentationEach team MUST complete and submit ALL the relevant competition documentation as required by REA Foundation Ltd. and within the stated timeframes. Some forms are signed electronically when teachers register teams. Others MUST be printed, signed and forwarded to REA prior to the event. All forms are downloadable from the Resources/Competition Documents tab of the SUBS in Schools menu on the REA Foundation Ltd website. The following documents apply:

C2�4�1�1 Terms and Conditions FormThis form constitutes an agreement between REA Foundation Ltd. and supervising teachers regarding participation by teams in State and National finals. The form is electronically signed by teachers when registering their teams on-line via the REA Foundation Ltd website. It is very important that teachers read this form before registering their teams. C2�4�1�2 Media Consent Form (all classes)

• One per student.• Valid for the entire Australian Competition Season.• Parent/Guardian signature required if student under 16 years.• MUST be signed and submitted electronically by the published deadline.

Students failing to submit a signed Media Consent form by Day 1 of the event will NOT be permitted to attend or participate at an REA managed final.

C2�4�1�3 Water Craft Finishing Declaration Form (all classes)2

• One per team.• New form MUST be signed and submitted for EACH event electronically by

the published deadline.• Team Manager and Teacher signature required.• Penalties apply for non-submission.

C2�4�1�4 Development Class Declaration FormThis form is electronically signed by teachers when they register their Development Cass team on-line. Teachers MUST be aware of and agree to the special conditions for Development Class teams before enabling the check box in the on-line registration form.C2�4�1�5 Grievance Form (all classes)

• Submission is via an on-line form, a link to which will be provided.• Completed only if teams have a judging grievance.• MUST be submitted by the published deadline to the Event Director.• MUST be completed by the Team Manager ONLY.• The Chair of Judges decision is FINAL.

2 Not applicable for Level 3 Spatial Design

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Advice]



C2�4�1�6 Student Code of Conduct Form (all classes)• One per team• Valid for the entire competition season• Team Manager and Teacher signature required• Must be electronically submitted upon finalisation of Team Registration

C2�4�2 Event Check-inC2�4�2�1 Team AttendanceAll teams MUST attend a team event Check-in process, the timing of which will be published by REA Foundation Ltd. no less than one month prior to the State or National Final. At this check-in, teams will be issued with State or National Final accreditation, event programs and a detailed welcome pack.C2�4�2�2 Submitting Project ElementsWhen checking in at State Finals and National Finals, each team MUST provide REA Foundation Ltd with minimum mandatory project elements as outlined in ARTICLE C2.9. Failure to provide the listed items MAY impact on a team’s eligibility to compete and judging outcomes. Some project elements will require pre event check-in uploading on-line to an REA managed google drive by the published deadline, the link for which will be provided by event organisers. Teams WILL be required to have a Google account for this purpose.

C2�4�3 Team DressC2�4�3�1 Team UniformsAt State and National Finals, ONLY members of the official competing team are permitted to wear the team’s uniform.C2�4�3�2 School UniformIn lieu of a Team Uniform, teams MAY wear an official School Uniform.

C2�4�4 Collaboration Team AwardsIf a collaboration team wins an award at a National Final which involves a perpetual trophy, this MUST be shared between the team for the 12 months following the event. Award certificates will be duplicated for awards won by collaboration teams. All trophies are to be returned.

C2�5 Team ResponsibilitiesC2�5�1 Australian Technical RegulationsTeams MUST read the Australian Technical Regulations carefully to ensure their designs comply with those regulations.

C2�5�2 Australian Competition RegulationsTeams MUST read the Australian Competition Regulations (this document) carefully to ensure that all project elements satisfy these regulations and that they understand the requirements and procedures for all aspects of the competition and judging.

C2�5�3 Attendance at Scheduled Activities C2�5�3�1 Team Representation OnlyDuring the competition, ONLY the official team members can represent the team at event check-in, trade display set up, verbal presentation, portfolio, marketing and engineering judging, specifications compliance feedback, critical rule rectification, trials, watercraft servicing and repair, and any direct communication with the Chair of Judges or Event/Competition Directors concerning judging matters.C2�5�3�2 All Team Members RequiredDuring the competition it is the team’s responsibility to ensure that ALL team members are present at the correct time and location for all scheduled activities.C2�5�3�3 Trade Display SecuritySecurity of a team’s Trade Display and its elements is the team’s responsibility during competition. Teams are strongly advised to remove and secure any marketing or other items when they are away from their booth attending judging or other activities.

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Advice]



C2�6 Role and Responsibility of Supervising Teacher�C2�6�1 Terms and Conditions FormAll supervising teachers MUST carefully read and understand the terms and conditions for entry to the SUBS in Schools State & National Finals events, and MUST have explained all relevant information within this agreement to their team/s.

C2�6�2 Other DocumentationAll supervising teachers MUST ensure all declaration and media consent forms are completed and sent to REA Foundation Ltd. by the stated deadline, otherwise teams MAY be ineligible to participate.

C2�6�3 Duty of Care by Schools & TeachersIt is the primary responsibility of any event accredited supervising teacher to administer their school’s duty of care / well-being, relevant to their education system’s guidelines, for all their student team members, throughout the entirety of REA Foundation Ltd. managed events. Any concerns arising during the event in relation to this SHOULD be brought to the attention of the SUBS in Schools Event Director immediately. A school’s Duty of Care cannot be transferred to a 3rd party such as REA Foundation Ltd.

C2�6�4 Standard of Care by REAREA Foundation Ltd. will do its utmost to administer a high Standard of Care for teachers, students and members of the public through adherence with requirements of Workplace Health & Safety, Risk Management and Child Protection procedures. It will also strive to ensure the judging process is applied fairly and equally to each and every team attending our managed events.

C2�6�5 Attending Judging Attending Judging SessionsWhere space permits and at the discretion of the Chair of Judges, ONE approved supervising teacher is permitted to observe (in the background) any judging activity with their team but MUST not interact in any way with the student team, judges or judging process. Any incident considered inappropriate will be brought to the attention of the Chair of Judges.

C2�7 Team partnerships/collaborationsC2�7�1 MentoringSUBS in Schools teams are encouraged to develop mentoring partnerships/collaborations with businesses, industry or higher education organisations throughout their project.

C2�7�2 Student Work OnlyAll design work, text and scripting for ALL project elements presented for assessment MUST be wholly undertaken and created by the team tembers and be their own original work.. This includes all CAD and CAM data, electronic Portfolio, Trade Display and graphic content.The process of assembling the watercraft from manufactured components, purchased components and purchased sub-assemblies MUST be wholly undertaken by the team. The process of ‘finishing’ the watercraft MUST be wholly undertaken by the team.

C2�7�3 Documenting Partnerships in PortfolioAspects of any partnerships with external individuals and organisations including mentoring and provision of services MUST be represented in the team’s Portfolios. For project elements produced utilising some outside assistance, teams SHOULD be able to demonstrate to the judges a high level of understanding of, and justification for ANY of the processes and services used.

C2�8 REA Corporate Partner Logos and National SupportC2�8�1 REA Corporate Partner LogosTeams MUST include the REA Foundation Ltd. Corporate Partner logos in their project and failure to use some or all of the logos as required will be reflected in a team’s marks in the relevant judging criteria. The logos and branding guidelines (where they exist) are available to download from the Resources tab within the SUBS in Schools menu of the REA Foundation Ltd website and teams MUST be fully aware of the conditions outlined in these documents. The two levels of Corporate Partners are clearly identified within the downloadable file. Refer to the Australian Technical Regulations.

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Advice]




C2�8�1�1 Level 1 Corporate Partner Logos These MUST be applied to a team’s watercraft3, portfolio, trade display and uniform. Water craft sticker decals for Level 1 REA Corporate Partners are supplied to teams immediately prior to the Submission process. Teams are NOT permitted to produce their own corporate partner decals. C2�8�1�2 Level 2 Corporate Partner LogosThese are identified REA partner organisations who provide a mentoring service to teams undertaking the project. Sticker decals MUST be applied to a team’s watercraft as a minimum.

C2�8�2 New SUBS in Schools LogoFrom 2019, teams MUST use the updated and trade marked SUBS in Schools Logo. No other version of the logo is permitted.

C2�8�3 SUBS in Schools & Department of Defence Logo Permitted UseUse of the SUBS in Schools and Department of Defence logos outside of the STEM Challenge is NOT permitted and use of the Department of Defence logo within the ‘Challenge’ is NOT permitted on ANY social media pages. Use is restricted to project elements such as cars, portfolios, trade displays and team uniform.

C2�8�4 Department of Defence National SupportThe Australian Government’s Department of Defence has provided REA with financial support for SUBS in Schools since 2014. As the largest financial supporter of REA activities, the Department of Defence is already a supporter of your team, so please DO NOT approach them for ANY further financial support.

C2�9 Mandatory Project Elements Submitted at Event Check-inFollowing is a summary of the mandatory elements to be submitted for judging at State and National Finals:

C2�9�1 Level 2: Build and Design a Large ROV• One (1) complete trial ready ROV• Two (2) identical printed A3 Enterprise Portfolios, bound or in presentation folders.• Three (3) identical printed A3 Engineering Portfolios.• One (1) Engineering Compliance Booklet containing separate A3 size printed

engineering compliance drawing/s for specification & CAD judging and A3 size Photorealistic 3D render/s of ROV for CAD judging. Booklet MUST be bound or in a presentation folder when submitted.

C2�9�2 Level 3: Design an Accommodation Space• Two (2) identical printed A3 Enterprise Portfolios, bound or in presentation folders.• Three (3) identical printed A3 Engineering Portfolios bound or in presentation folders.• One (1) Engineering Compliance Booklet containing separate A3 size printed

engineering compliance drawing/s for specification & CAD judging and A3 size Photorealistic 3D render/s of Accommodation Space for CAD judging. Booklet MUST be bound or in a presentation folder when submitted.

C2�9�3 Level 4: Design and Build a Working Model Submarine• One complete trial ready submarine• Two (2) identical printed A3 Enterprise Portfolios, bound or in presentation folders.• Three (3) identical printed A3 Engineering Portfolios bound or in presentation folders.• One (1) Engineering Compliance Booklet containing separate A3 size printed

engineering compliance drawing/s for specification & CAD judging and A3 size Photorealistic 3D render/s of submarine for CAD judging. Booklet MUST be bound or in a presentation folder when submitted.


[Advice]

[Advice]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Advice]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]


C2�9�4 Mandatory Project Elements Submitted: Prior to EventAround two weeks prior to an event, all Level 2 - 4 teams will be emailed a unique link to a google drive folder that they will be required to upload their electronic data to. Uploaded files MUST be a team’s final versions they are submitting for judging. This requirement is an addition to the requirements in C2.9.1, C2.9.2 and C2.9.3. There is no longer a requirement to submit these files on a USB at the point of Event Registration.

• Enterprise Portfolio in PDF only• Engineering Portfolio in PDF only• Engineering Compliance Booklet in PDF only• High Quality Renders• ALL 3D CAD Files in STEP format only (Level 2 & 4) and Sketchup (Level 3)• Watercraft Finishing Declaration Form in PDF only• Media Consent Forms in PDF only• Code of Conduct Form in PDF only

C2�9�5 PenaltiesTeams failing to submit any of the required Project Elements as per C2.9.4 in the required format and by the required timeframes, will incur a 10 point penalty for each day or part thereof they are overdue.

C2�10 Project Judging Elements Detailed InformationC2�10�1 Trial Watercraft4

Each Level 2 ROV & Level 4 Submarine team MUST produce one (1) primary trial ready watercraft complete with Corporate Partner decals.

C2�10�2 PortfoliosEach team MUST submit two (2) A3 sized, ’Enterprise Portfolios’ and three (3) A3 sized ‘Engineering Portfolios’ in hard copy and bound or in a presentation folder. Each portfolio SHOULD be well written and clearly summarise the team’s key activities and key messages for assessment, evaluation, and event promotion. Teams SHOULD produce additional copies for exhibiting within the team’s Trade Booth and for Verbal Presentation if desired.Each Portfolio is limited to:

C2�10�2�1 Development ClassState Finals: 7 PRINTED pages including the front coverNational Finals: 11 PRINTED pages including the front coverC2�10�2�2 Professional Class teams State & National Finals: 11 PRINTED pages including the front cover.

This can be presented as single or double sided printed sheets. If a Portfolio comprises more than the maximum allowable PRINTED pages, the Judges will ONLY review the first 7/11 printed pages, whichever applies.. Blank pages containing no printed matter are NOT included in the judged content or page count.

C2�10�3 Orthographic Drawing/s As a minimum, a 3rd angle orthographic projection drawing, including plan, side and end elevations of the fully assembled watercraft or accommodation space MUST be included within an Engineering Compliance Booklet which is submitted at event check-in. These elements MUST be produced using CAD. The orthographic technical drawing SHOULD include dimensions and corresponding regulation numbers in order to illustrate regulation compliance. The team name and author MUST also be included in a title block.Additional engineering drawings of their watercraft assembly and parts or accommodation space MAY also be submitted if they wish these to be referenced by the engineering and specification judges. These drawings MUST be on pages no larger than A3 in size and be bound, clearly identified with the team name.


[Advice]

[Advice]

[Advice]




C2�10�4 3D Photorealistic Render/sAs a minimum, a separate, duplicate, hard copy of the 3D realistic render of the final watercraft or accommodation space design appearing on the cover page of a team’s Engineering portfolio MUST also be submitted at event check-in. This is to be bound with or included in the Engineering Compliance Booklet of engineering drawings and clearly identified with the team name. Refer ARTICLE C2.10.3.

C2�10�5 Trade DisplayEach team WILL be provided with a dedicated exhibition style space for set-up of their display elements. Refer to ARTICLE C7 for further trade display specifications, content requirements and information on what is provided for each level of competition.

C2�10�6 Verbal PresentationTeams WILL be required to deliver a verbal presentation in relation to their project to the Judges. The presentation MUST not last longer than ten (10) minutes. Teams MUST bring their own laptop with any slide show or other multimedia files that need to be shown as part of their verbal presentation. Teams SHOULD also have available their own VGA and HDMI cables to connect to a data projector/TV monitor. Any team who needs a laptop for verbal presentation judging and is unable to bring one to a State or National Final MUST contact REA Foundation Ltd. ([email protected]) at least one month prior to the event. Refer to ARTICLE C8 of these regulations for details regarding presentation content and other requirements.

C2�10�7 Laptops for JudgingTeams MUST bring laptops for identified judging elements as follows. If multiple teams from the same school are participating, more than one laptop SHOULD be brought to deal with situations where teams are being judged in the same time block. ANY team unable to bring a laptop to a State and National Finals event with CAD software installed MUST contact REA Foundation Ltd. ([email protected]) at least one month prior to the event in an effort to assist in finding a solution.

C2�10�7�1 Engineering JudgingA laptop with the CAD software used by Level 2 and 4 teams and with all CAD part and assembly data MUST be brought to State and National Finals events. This will be needed during the engineering judging session so that the team can demonstrate their CAD work and better explain how they engineered their watercraftTeams undertaking Level 3 Spatial Design, will be provided with the appropriate VR technologies enabling them to demonstrate their accommodation space design to Engineering judges at State and National Finals.C2�10�7�2 Verbal PresentationTeams wishing to run a slideshow or video as part of their Verbal Presentation MUST ensure they bring this on a laptop with their own VGA and HDMI cables available for connection to a data projector/TV monitor. Teams SHOULD ensure they are familiar with and adept at managing communication between their laptops and data projectors and TV monitors which will be provided by the organisers.

C2�10�8 Access to the InternetTeams MUST organise their own internet access via a portable wireless device if required.

C2�11 Project Elements Retained by REA Foundation Ltd�It is a condition of entry to Australian State and National Finals that each team permits REA Foundation Ltd. to retain 1 x 7/11 page printed Enterprise AND Engineering Portfolio and Compliance Booklet. Teams also permit REA Foundation Ltd. to use any of these project elements for marketing purposes and / or publication as exemplar projects for reference by others.

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Eligibility]


Article C3 | Competition and Judging Format

ARTICLE C3 - COMPETITION AND JUDGING FORMATC3�1 Event ProgrammeAn Event Programme outlining the timing and venue for all judging and competition activities will be formulated by REA Foundation Ltd. and provided to all teams at event check-in as well as being uploaded to the REA Foundation Ltd website.

C3�2 Judging ScheduleEach team will be judged as per the Judging Schedule. The Judging Schedule will be formulated by REA Foundation Ltd. to best and fairly accommodate all judging and other competition activities.

C3�2�1 Judging Session TimingsTeams will rotate around judging activities as per this judging schedule, with each rotation usually of between 10 – 30 minutes in duration.

C3�2�2 Judging StreamsThe judging schedule MAY be divided into two or three parallel judging streams (Stream A, Stream B and Stream C), with each judging stream responsible for a class of competition. A number of strategies are implemented within the judging process, including judge briefings and judge reviews, for cross-moderation, to ensure there is consistency across the judging streams, particularly where parallel streams exist within a class.

C3�3 Judging PanelsREA Foundation Ltd. always makes every effort to select judges from industry and higher education institutions who have knowledge and experience relevant to the panel they will be judging on. All judging panels are fully briefed by the Event Director and/or the Chair of Judges prior to the start of the competition.

C3�4 Who Attends Judging?ALL team members MUST attend every scheduled judging session as per the Judging Schedule except for Specifications Compliance Feedback. At Specifications Compliance Feedback, the Team Manager, Design Engineer and Manufacturing Engineer MUST attend as a minimum. One supervising teacher MAY observe judging sessions as per the conditions set out in ARTICLE C2.6.5. This teacher MUST not directly approach or discuss any judging matters with the judges at any time unless invited to do so.

C3�5 Students with Special NeedsIn circumstances where a student has special needs and upon written application to REA Foundation Ltd. by the supervising teacher at least one month prior to a State or National Final, every effort will be made to accommodate the needs of the student.

C3�6 Judging CategoriesThere are nine (9) main judging categories, each with its own team of judges – where possible - and specified judging activities as detailed in further articles.

• Specifications• Engineering - CAD• Engineering - Manufacturing5

• Engineering - Design Process• Portfolio – Project Management & Future Careers• Portfolio - Design Clarity & Quality• Marketing – Branding and Trade Display • Verbal Presentation - Technique & Content• Practical Demonstration (Trial)

C3�7 Point AllocationsAt State and National Finals, points will be awarded to teams across six (6) categories with maximum possible scores as detailed in the following table.

5 Not Applicable to Level 3 Spatial Design

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Advice]

[Eligibility]

[Eligibility]

[Advice]

[Advice]


State & National Final Points Allocation TableSpecifications ROV & Submarine Spatial Design

Specifications 80 points N/AEngineering ROV & Submarine Spatial Design

CAD 65 points 70 pointsManufacturing 65 points N/A

Design Process 70 points 80 pointsPortfolio ROV & Submarine Spatial Design

Project Management 100 points 100 pointsDesign 50 points 50 points

Marketing ROV & Submarine Spatial DesignBranding 60 points 60 points

Trade Display 1306 /145 points 145 pointsVerbal Presentation ROV & Submarine Spatial Design

Technique 70 points 70 pointsContent 95 points 95 points

Practical Demonstration ROV & Submarine Spatial DesignTrial 200 points N/ATotal 9856 / 1000 points 670 points

C3�8 Judging Score CardsThe REA Foundation Ltd State and National Finals judging score cards provide detailed information in relation to what the Judges will be looking for. They include key performance indicators which are referred to by the judges in awarding points during judging activities. These can be found in the Appendices at the end of this document. Reading the score cards carefully is important as they provide critical information for teams as to what needs to be presented for each judging category.

C3�9 Critical regulations7

C3�9�1 Non ComplianceTechnical Regulations attracting time penalties have been identified as being critical regulations. If following specifications compliance AND time given to rectify any infringement (Refer C4.1.4.2), a team’s trial water craft is judged as being NON-COMPLIANT with any critical technical regulation, they WILL incur the corresponding time penalty and be ineligible for the following Engineering Awards:

• Best Engineered• Best Engineering CAD• Best Manufactured Water Craft

C3�9�2 The Critical Technical Regulation Articles for Level 4 Submarine are:T5.1/T5.2/T5.3/T5.4/T5.5/T5.9/T5.10/T6.1

C3�9�3 The Critical Technical Regulation Articles for Level 2 ROV are:T3.1/T3.2Note well: Article numbers are from the 2020 Australian Technical Regulations. Please take extra time to check your water craft doesn’t break any of the above critical Technical Regulations.

6 Level 2 Development Class team points at State Finals7 Not applicable to Level 3 Spatial Design

[Advice]

[Advice]

Competition and Judging Format | Article C3


Article C3 | Specifications Judging

ARTICLE C4 - SPECIFICATIONS JUDGING (80 POINTS)

C4�1 General InformationC4�1�1 Competition Class ProvisionsSpecifications judging is only conducted for Level 2 ROV & Level 4 Submarine.

C4�1�2 What Will Be Assessed?Specification judging is a detailed inspection process where the trial ready watercraft is assessed for compliance with the SUBS in Schools Australian Technical Regulations. Refer to the specification judging score card for scoring details.

C4�1�3 Team PreparationTeams MUST ensure that their trial ready watercraft is complete and ready for specification judging before they are submitted. Notice is also drawn to the critical technical regulations, refer ARTICLE C3.9.

C4�1�4 Judging Process / ProcedureTeams begin specifications judging with a full allocation of points. Any infringements of the Technical Regulation articles, on the watercraft WILL result in point’s being deducted as detailed in the Technical Regulations. There are two parts to the specification judging process.

C4�1�4�1 Specifications Compliance JudgingThis is conducted within the confines of parc fermé, where the Scrutineers will check trial ready watercraft for compliance to the Technical Regulations. Teams will be present during compliance judging to handle their watercraft and demonstrate features to the scrutineers.C4�1�4�2 Rectifying Critical Regulation Failure8

Teams that have been judged during initial specifications compliance to have incurred a critical regulation failure through non-compliance with a Technical Rule attracting a Time Penalty, WILL be provided with a special 20 minute watercraft service time, prior to the commencement of trials. If during this service time the water craft can be modified so as to comply with the failed regulation/s, the Time Penalty/ies WILL be removed without being classified as having incurred a critical regulation infringement. However, the points’ penalty WILL still apply.Teams are advised to bring their own tools and measuring devices for rectification. REA will not provide these items.–C4�1�4�3 Specifications Compliance FeedbackWhere time permits, each team WILL be scheduled a period of time for a review of any specification infringements ruled. This will generally be conducted at a team’s Trade Display or other area identified in pre-competition event documentation. The Lead Scrutineer WILL highlight to the team any technical regulation infringements and provide necessary explanations. The team is then given an opportunity to explain to the Judges why they feel any identified infringements SHOULD be considered as permissible.Following the team’s explanation, the Lead Scrutineer MAY choose to reverse the original decision or uphold it. No further discussion will then be permitted at that point. Teams MAY lodge a Grievance as per ARTICLE C4.2 and ARTICLE C11.

C4�2 Specification Judging Decision AppealsTeams MAY ONLY appeal the specification judges’ decision if they believe their justification for regulation compliance SHOULD be accepted. The procedure for submitting technical regulation infringements is outlined in ARTICLE C11.



ARTICLE C5 - ENGINEERING JUDGING (200/ 1509 POINTS)C5�1 General Information

C5�1�1 Competition Class ProvisionsEngineering judging is conducted for all levels of competition. However, Level 3 Spatial Design does NOT undertake Manufacturing judging.

C5�1�2 Team PreparationC5�1�2�1 CAD & Manufacturing10 JudgingA laptop with the CAD & CAM/CNC software used by the team and with all CAD part and assembly data MUST to be taken to engineering judging. (Refer ARTICLE C2.10.7.1). Teams undertaking Level 3 Spatial Design, will be provided with the appropriate VR tecnologies enabling them to demonstrate their accommodation space design to judges.Other items MAY also be taken to help the team explain any engineering or concepts. The engineering judges will not have access to the team trade display for judging purposes. Preparation SHOULD include careful reading of the score card. The key performance indicators describe what the judges will be looking for.C5�1�2�2 Engineering Design Process Judging

• Teams SHOULD thoroughly document their Design Process in their Engineering Portfolio.

C5�1�3 Judging Process / ProcedureC5�1�3�1 CAD & Manufacturing10 JudgingCAD & Manufacturing will be judged via scheduled judging interview sessions that will focus on the Key Criteria. These are informal interviews where Judges will ask teams to demonstrate their CAD and CAM/CNC9 work and query them on what they have done. This will be supported by secondary evidence contained within a team’s Engineering Portfolio and Engineering Compliance Booklet. The assessment of the geometry and surface finish of the final product will be judged during a separate ‘closed to teams’ session.

C5�1�3�1�1 Level 2 - ROV & Level 4 - SubmarineThe CAD judging will be conducted using the teams laptop. The judges will assess the model through the relevant CAD software.C5�1�3�1�2 Level 3 - Spatial DesignThe CAD judging will be conducted using VR technology. The team will be required to show the judges through their design using the supplied VR Goggles (HTC Vive Pro).C5�1�3�1�3 Engineering Design Process

Engineering Design Process will be judged from the information documented in a team’s Engineering Portfolio. Teams will be awarded points as per the key performance indicators shown on the Engineering Design Process score card.

C5�2 Key CriteriaC5�2�1 CAD (65/709 points)Refer to the Engineering/CAD judging score card for key performance indicator information.

C5�2�1�1 What Will Be Assessed - Levels 2 & 4The engineering judges will assess the team’s use of CAD technologies, analysis, rendering, technical merit as well as comparing the CAD model with the finished product. Specific areas to be assessed are:

• Application of CAD• CAD Organisation• CAD Based Analysis• Overall Design Technical Merit• CAD Model vs Finished Product• Orthographic (Engineering Compliance Booklet) • Rendering (Engineering Compliance Booklet)

9 Applicable to Level 3 Spatial Design teams only10 Manufacturing Judging, not applicable to Level 3 Spatial Design

Engineering Judging | Article C4


Article C5 | Engineering Judging

C5�2�1�2 What Will Be Assessed - Level 3The engineering judges will assess the team’s use of CAD technologies and understanding of human ergonomics to design a functional space.

• Design Intent• Model Detail• Explanation of Model Layout• Understanding of Human Ergonomics• Use of Human Mannequins to Highlight Design Intent• Engineering Drawings• Rendering

C5�2�2 Manufacturing11 (65 points)Refer to the Engineering/Manufacturing judging score card for key performance indicator information.

C5�2�2�1 What Will Be Assessed? The engineering judges will assess the team’s use of CNC and other technologies when manufacturing their water craft body and other components, the technical merit as well as comparing the geometry and surface finish quality of the final product. Specific areas to be assessed are:

• Application of CAM/CNC• Manufacturing process caps and sail• Manufacturing process internal components• Tolerance / Quality Control• Overall Manufacturing Technical Merit• Quality of Finished Product - Geometry/Form• Quality of Finished Product - Surface finish

C5�2�3 Design Process (70/8012 points)Refer to the Engineering/Design Process judging score card/s for key performance indicator information.

C5�2�3�1 What Will Be Assessed? The engineering judges will assess the team’s Design Process which includes all stages from identifying the requirements of the brief through to the final design. Specific areas to be assessed are:

• Requirements Analysis11 / Design Specification13

• Ideas• Development• Analysis• Physical Testing11

• Evaluation• Overall Design Technical Merit

ARTICLE C6 - PORTFOLIO JUDGING (150 POINTS)

C6�1 General InformationC6�1�1 Competition Class ProvisionsPortfolio judging is conducted for all levels of the competition

C6�1�2 Team PreparationEach team MUST prepare a Portfolio as per ARTICLE C2.10.2. A team’s Portfolio tells the story of the team’s journey including the knowledge and skills they have acquired along the way. It is considered a professional business document so attention to detail is paramount. Most importantly, teams need to read the Portfolio judging score cards carefully to ensure that all areas to be assessed are included within the context of their Portfolio.

11 Not applicable to Level 3 Spatial Design12 Applicable points for Level 3 Spatial Design13 Not applicable to Level 2 Large ROV & Level 4 Submarine


C6�1�3 Portfolio StructureEach Portfolio MUST be clearly labelled as either Enterprise or Engineering with the team name. To streamline the judging of team Portfolios, teams MUST structure this as TWO separate documents containing the following number of pages:

1� Development Class• State Finals: 7 pages including the front cover • National Finals: 11 pages including the front cover

2� Professional Class• State and National Finals: 11 pages including the front cover

Portfolio Design elements will be assessed throughout the teams’ entire two Portfolios. For more information on the suggested page content of the Portfolios, refer to the relevant scorecards and APPENDICES C14.5 and C14.6.

C6�1�3�1 Enterprise Portfolio• Project Management• Marketing• Skill Development & Linking Skills with Careers

C6�1�3�2 Engineering Portfolio• Engineering Design Process

C6�1�4 Judging process / procedureThe Portfolios will be assessed behind closed doors which is conducted during the course of the finals event. For some key criterion, this will be supported by a verification interview of team members at the Trade Display or other area identified in pre-competition event documentation. Teams SHOULD have a copy of their Portfolios on their Trade Display at all times. Teams are required to submit electronic versions prior to a published deadline, as well as several hard copies of their Portfolios at Event Check-in for assessment by judges. Failure to submit the required number and correct Portfolio size will result in penalties being applied.

C6�1�5 Referencing‘‘Accurate referencing is important in all academic work. As a student you will need to understand the general principles to apply when citing sources and take steps to avoid plagiarism.Referencing is the process of acknowledging the sources you have used in writing your essay, assignment or piece of work. It allows the reader to access your source documents as quickly and easily as possible in order to verify, if necessary, the validity of your arguments and the evidence on which they are based.By referring to the works of established authorities and experts in your subject area, you can add weight to your comments and arguments. This helps to demonstrate that you have read widely, and considered and analysed the writings of othersGood referencing is essential to avoid any possible accusation of plagiarism.’’14

C6�1�6 Plagiarism‘‘Plagiarism is a term that describes the unacknowledged use of someone’s work. This includes material or ideas from any (published or unpublished) sources, whether print, web-based (even if freely available) or audiovisual. Using the words or ideas of others without referencing your source would be construed as plagiarism and is a very serious academic offence. At the end of the day, it is regarded as stealing intellectual property.’’¹4

From 2020, plagiarism detection software ‘Turnitin ’ will be used to check the authenticity of content in all teams’ state and national final portfolios.Content in team portfolios found to have been plagiarised, will not be assessed as part of the judging process resulting in zero marks for the relevant criteria.

14 https://www.macmillanihe.com/studentstudyskills/page/Referencing-and-Avoiding-Pla-giarism/

Portfolio Judging | Article C5


Article C6 | Portfolio Judging

C6�1�7 Portfolio PenaltiesThe Chair of Judges reserves the right to apply penalties for teams who:• DO NOT submit the correct number of hard copies required for judging [10pt Penalty]• DO NOT provide hard copies in the mandated A3 size [10pt Penalty]• DO NOT structure their Portfolio as per C7.1.3 • DO NOT submit electronic copies by the published deadline as per C2.9.3 15

C6�2 Key CriteriaC6�2�1 Project Management & Linking Skills with Careers (100 points)Refer to the Portfolio/Project Management score card for detailed point scoring and key performance indicator information. There will be NO verification interview required for this key criteria.

C6�2�2 What will be Assessed? Project Management MUST be contained within of each team’s Enterprise Portfolio in order to assess the following specific areas.

• Team Roles & Tasks • Scope• Time Management• Finance• Risk Management • Internal Communication • Stakeholder Engagement• Skill Development for Future Careers• Evaluation

C6�2�3 Portfolio Design (50 points)Refer to the Portfolio/Design score card for detailed point scoring and key performance indicator information. There will be NO verification interview required for this key criterion.

C6�2�3�1 What Will Be Assessed? Judges will review each team’s Enterprise and Engineering Portfolios in order to assess the following specific areas.

• Production Quality of Materials• Production Quality of Content • Content Organisation• Layout Design Typography• Photos & Images• Creative Graphics (Visual effects and infographics)• Editing/Proofreading• Referencing• Writing & Readability

ARTICLE C7 - MARKETING JUDGING (19016/205 POINTS)C7�1 General Information

C7�1�1 Competition Class ProvisionsMarketing judging is conducted for all levels of the competition.

C7�1�2 Who Needs to AttendAll team members MUST be present at Trade Booth judging.

C7�1�3 Team PreparationEach team MUST prepare an Enterprise Portfolio as per ARTICLE C2.10.2 and a Trade Display as per ARTICLE C2.10.5. Some Branding elements MUST be contained within each team’s Enterprise Portfolio. Others will be assessed within a team’s Trade Display. Read the Marketing Score Cards carefully to ensure that all areas to be assessed are included within the context of their Portfolio and Trade Display.

15 10 Points per day or part thereof as per ARTICLE C2.9.416 Development Class Trade Display points for State Finals are less than Professional Class

[10pt Penalty][10pt Penalty]


Judging Process / ProcedureThe branding and trade display criteria from the Marketing Score Card will be assessed primarily within the trade display with secondary evidence on logo development assessed from within a team’s Enterprise Portfolio. The Judges will introduce themselves then ask questions to help them find certain content and/or seek further explanation.

Teams SHOULD have a copy of their Enterprise Portfolio on their Trade Display at all times. Teams MAY be asked to step away from the trade display so judges can gain first impressions and concur before asking them to return to their display.

C7�2 Key CriteriaC7�2�1 Branding (60 points)Refer to the Marketing/Branding score card for detailed point scoring and key performance indicator information.

C7�2�1�1 What Will Be Assessed? The Marketing judges will assess a team’s branding primarily within their Trade Display. As a secondary source of evidence, the judges will also access a team’s Portfolio to assess logo development. Specific areas to be assessed are:

• Team Name• Logo Development• Final Logo Design• Logo Application• Team Branding• Media Exposure• Team Sponsors & REA Corporate Partners ROI• Team Uniform• Team Presence• Team Knowledge

C7�2�2 Trade Display (130 / 145 points)In addition to the general regulations governing Trade Displays, Level 2 Development Class teams MUST also comply with class restrictions as defined in C14.1 for State Finals.

Refer to the Marketing/Trade Display score card for detailed point scoring and key performance indicator information.

C7�2�2�1 What Will Be Assessed?A trade display is to visually ‘sell’ the team’s most important key messages in snapshot form for assessment and event promotion. The Marketing judges will assess a team’s trade display content and structure. Specific areas to be assessed are:

• Trade Display Design Development• Car Display• Information Design• Use of ICTs• Visual Design & Impact• Structural Design17 • Materials Selection & Use• Sustainability

C7�3 Trade Display Design RequirementsDevelop a ‘Design Brief’ that charts your team’s creative approach, design considerations (space, purpose), transport limitations (cost and assembly constraints) and environmental impact to comply with the regulations, inform judges and justify your decisions with the following in mind:

C7�3�1 CostsDetermine a budget and stick to it. Seek sponsorship of cash or donations of display elements.Consider ways of reducing costs through reusing and recycling structural elements.

17 Not applicable to the Development Class at State Finals

Marketing Judging | Article C7


Article C7 | Marketing Judging

C7�3�2 ResearchResearch Innovative ideas and current trends online and/or seek a mentor in this space.

C7�3�3 Scorecard CriteriaRead carefully the Trade Display scorecard, Set Up and conditions within this document.

C7�3�4 Design ConsiderationsThe Trade Display serves two primary functions:

1� Externally showcase the team’s key messages

2� Internally store a team’s assets such as bags, tools and consumables. With this in mind, use 3D CAD to create a digital mock-up with consideration for:

C7�3�4�1 DimensionsRecommended maximum internal build dimensions of provided booth shell/backboard.C7�3�4�2 PortabilityThink flat-pack, modular, lightweight, pop-up, for ease of set-up and transportation.C7�3�4�3 SustainabilityReuse and recycle, particularly frameworks that can be reconfigured with new stretch or re-attachable banner materials.C7�3�4�4 MaterialsConsider fabric/textile options which are easier to transport, less prone to damage and more environmentally friendly as opposed to corflute/vinyl equivalents.C7�3�4�5 StorageDesign options for storage of bags, tools and top-up Marketing materials, as well as hide electrical cables and powerboardsC7�3�4�6 LightingIncorporate lighting to accentuate design features and brighten key areas of your exhibit such as product displays and promotional materials.C7�3�4�7 ShelvingUse shelves to attractively organise products

C7�4 Set UpC7�4�1 StageFrom 2020, ALL teams are required to comply with new packaging restrictions for ALL trade display items brought into State and National Final event venues:

C7�4�1�1 All Team ElementsALL team elements including structural components, banners, display items (e.g. show car, portfolio), electrical and electronic items, marketing items including give-aways and consumables, and tools and fasteners required to assemble the trade display but excluding ladders and uniforms, MUST be ‘staged’ in the booth shell. Non team members MAY assist with lift and carry only.All staged items MUST be brought into the event venue wholly contained within sealed or closed boxes, cartons, containers, cases or tubes.C7�4�1�2 Maximum Size of ItemsTo align with standard domestic and international, air and road freight maximum dimensions, no one item can be larger than:

• Boxes/Cartons/Containers/Cases: 1200mm x 600mm x 600mm18

• Tubes: 110mm in diameter18 (containing ONLY posters)C7�4�1�3 Combined Maximum Volume of Packaged ItemsWhen staged in the booth shell, ALL items MUST fit within a maximum volume of 1940mm x 1000mm x 1000mm. See APPENDIX C14.2 for futher information. Non team members SHALL NOT assist or direct with the staging/placement of packaged items within the booth shell.

18 Tolerance of 50mm applies


C7�4�1�4 ForkliftsNo forklifts or other material handling equirpment will be provided at State and National Finals by REA or the venue.

C7�4�2 AssembleC7�4�2�1 TimingA time period will be scheduled for teams to assemble their Trade Displays within the provided booth shell scheme arrangement, usually after event check-in and prior to the commencement of judging. Assembly will be conducted by all teams in accordance with the published schedule. A time limit of 2hrs maximum for each team will be enforced to avoid penalties.C7�4�2�2 Team Members OnlyNon team members are NOT permitted to assist teams with the staging or assembly of Trade Displays. All displays MUST be designed so that adult assistance is NOT required for assembling. This includes power, lighting and height issues. Step or full size ladders will NOT be provided, therefore teams need to factor this in to their assembly requirements if they cannot supply their own. All adults (excluding officials and judges) WILL be required to remain out of the venue where Trade Displays are located until the setup is complete.

C7�4�3 Booth Shell Scheme InformationAll team booth shell systems will include 1 x 240-volt power supply but teams will need to provide their own power boards if required, which MUST have a valid electrical safety test tag. At National Finals ONLY, each provided booth shell will also contain integrated lighting and fascia’s.

C7�4�3�1 Development ClassAt State Finals, Development Class teams will be provided with back boards ONLY, along with a trestle style table. Use of the trestle table by Development Class teams is compulsory and teams are required to provide their own table coverings.For all dimensions, refer APPENDIX C14.1.At National Finals, Development Class team trade displays arrangements will be as per Professional Class teams. C7�4�3�2 Professional ClassAt State and National Finals, REA Foundation Ltd. will provide each Professional Class team with a self-contained booth shell scheme, exhibition style display space. Dimensions vary depending on the type of shell scheme provided and the quality of build supplied. In addition, the dimensions can vary between end booths sharing one side wall and internal booths sharing two side walls.For all dimensions, refer APPENDIX C14.2.

C7�4�4 ConditionsTeams MUST comply with the following conditions:

• Development Class Teams MUST adhere to restrictions regarding Trade Displays for State Finals. See APPENDIX 2.

• Each teams’ booth shell SHOULD be fully fitted out for judging at the end of the 2hr setup whereupon photos will be taken.NO other items can be added to the trade display (excluding top-up marketing items) from this point forward and penalties will be applied for teams breaching this rule.

• REA Foundation Ltd. will instruct teams to remove or alter ANY display inclusions considered to be a safety hazard or inappropriate, including rubbish, bags etc. which are NOT part of the display.NO part of the team’s completed trade display is allowed to protrude beyond the physical dimensions of their allocated space. This includes anything that might protrude above the display space highest point e.g. flags, banner, balloons. Teams WILL be required to remove items infringing this rule and penalties will apply.

• Teams MAY provide their own display internal walls and tables/cabinets so long as they strictly fit within the booth shell system provided. NO part of a team’s substitute internal walling system can encroach beyond or above the walls of the booth shell system provided by the competition organisers and systems MUST be designed so that NO part of the provided booth shell system (including the fascia framework) requires dismantling.

Marketing Judging | Article C7


Article C8 | Marketing Judging

• Teams MUST NOT play sounds or music at their Trade Display at a loud volume. ANY sound or music played MUST be strictly relevant to the project such as commentary on a video produced by the team and NOT just for ‘entertainment’ value.

• Chairs are NOT permitted in or near the displays unless it is a chair/stool specially designed for the display, and this MUST sit within the volume of the booth shell’s external dimensions.

• Booth shells will be pre-allocated to teams by the event organisers. Teams MUST use the booth shell allocated and booth shell walling cannot be repositioned by ANY team unless there is an obstruction or issue of WHS and this MUST first be approved by the Competition Director or Chair of Judges.

• At National Finals teams MUST design their trade displays to fit within the supplied booth shell without requiring the removal of the booth fascia. Removal of the fascia will incur a penalty. See ARTICLE C7.4.5.

• From arrival at the competition venue until the official Trade Display Assembly Period, teams are NOT permitted to pre-construct nor assemble ANY part of their Trade Display anywhere within the premises of the competition venue including ANY venue car park.

• Trade Displays MUST be manned by at least one team member at all times excluding judging sessions. When a team is undertaking a judging session, the teacher or a supporting adult SHOULD supervise the trade display to ensure security. Note that competitions are generally open to the public.

• Trestle tables are NOT to be sat upon as they are NOT built for this. ANY damage to booth shell systems or provided trestle tables MUST be paid for by the team or their school.

• Workplace health and safety measures MUST be considered when teams are working at heights on their Trade Display.

• ANY electrical appliance (including power boards and extension cords) connected to the power supply MUST have a valid electrical safety test tag.

C7�4�5 Trade Display PenaltiesThe Chair of Judges reserves the right to apply penalties for teams who:

• DO NOT comply with Development Class restrictions at State Finals • DO NOT complete their set-up within the 2hr time limit [10pt Penalty]• DO NOT leave their stand in a safe state [10pt Penalty]• DO NOT clear their pit and surrounding area of all rubbish [10pt Penalty]• DO NOT contain their display within the display volume [10pt Penalty]• DO NOT comply with added content restrictions [10pt Penalty]• DO NOT design their display to enable fit-out without removal of fascia [10pt Penalty]• Construct ANY part of their display at the venue prior to scheduled build [10pt Penalty]• DO NOT comply with ALL packaging restrictions [50pt Penalty]

C7�4�6 Jetta Express SponsorshipJetta Express – an Australian excess baggage company – generously offer National Final teams FREE shipping of Trade Display assets from a team’s home state capital city to the event venue and return. Teams wishing to take advantage of this offer MUST adhere to strict guidelines including maximum weights and dimensions and compliance with timeline readiness of between 7-14 days prior to event start date. A copy of these guidelines can be downloaded from the Resources/Competition Documents Tab of the F1 in Schools menu of the REA website.

[10pt Penalty]


ARTICLE C8 - VERBAL PRESENTATION JUDGING (165 POINTS)

C8�1 General InformationC8�1�1 Competition Class ProvisionsVerbal Presentation judging is conducted for all levels of the competition

C8�1�2 Who Needs to Attend?All team members MUST be present at and contribute to the Verbal Presentation.

C8�1�3 Judging Process / ProcedureVerbal presentation judging is scheduled for the same duration as other judging sessions, usually 20 – 30 minutes. Teams will be given 5 minutes at the start of their time to set-up and test their laptop and any other presentation technologies and resources. The team will inform the judges when they are ready to begin. The judges start timing the 8-minute duration and will provide a discreet time warning signal when one minute of presentation time remains. The team will be asked to cease presenting when the time limit has been reached. At the conclusion of the team’s presentation time, the judges MAY choose to provide some feedback and / or ask any clarifying questions they feel necessary. However, assessment can ONLY be based on the team’s 8-minute presentation. Verbal presentations MAY be filmed for judge’s review or promotional and future resource purposes.

C8�1�4 Team PreparationEach team is required to prepare a verbal presentation as per the requirements at ARTICLE C2.10.6. Any multimedia content, slides etc. MUST be saved on and shown using the team’s own laptop along with VGA and HDMI cables. Teams need to have all presentation resources tested and ready for verbal presentation judging. Most importantly, teams SHOULD read the verbal presentation judging score card carefully to ensure their presentation features all elements and content that the verbal presentation judges will be looking for.

C8�1�5 Verbal Presentation Judging Provisions�REA Foundation Ltd. will provide a dedicated private space, such as a small meeting room, where each team will deliver their presentation to the judges. This space will include a data projector and screen or large TV monitor. Multimedia sound systems MAY not always be available and teams MAY have to bring their own portable speakers. If available these will be in fixed positions but usually with sufficient cable length to allow teams some freedom for choosing where they wish to locate their laptop. A single table will also be made available with its use and location in the presentation space being optional.

C8�1�6 Verbal Presentation Video RecordingsThe verbal presentations of all teams MAY be video recorded by the REA Foundation Ltd. for the purpose of judging review and / or post event publicity and promotional purposes for SUBS in Schools.

C8�2 Key CriteriaC8�2�1 Technique (70 points)Refer to the Verbal Presentation/Technique score card for detailed point scoring and key performance indicator information.

C8�2�1�1 What Will Be Assessed? • Presentation Energy• Team Contribution• Visual Aids• Audience Engagement• Articulation• Structure• Use of Time

Verbal Presentation Judging | Article C8


Article C9 | Trials

C8�2�2 Content (95 points)Refer to the Verbal Presentation/Content score card for detailed point scoring and key performance indicator information.

C8�2�2�1 What Will Be Assessed?• Team Objectives• Description of the Product• Innovation / Refinement• Collaboration• Learning Outcomes• Future Career Aspirations and Research• Overall Clarity

ARTICLE C9 - TRIALS (200 POINTS)C9�1 Trials - ROV & SubmarineThe Trials are time limited events in which teams will be required to perform certain tasks or manoeuvres with their water craft in order to score points.

C9�2 General InformationC9�2�1 Demonstration ProcessTeams will be scheduled with one or more time slots in order to complete their Trials. Trials are expected to be conducted in swimming pools with maximum depths of approximately 2 metres.

C9�2�2 Who Needs to Attend?All team members MUST be present at the Practical Demonstration Trial events.

C9�2�3 Time Penalties for TrialsC9�2�3�1 Specifications ComplianceIf following specifications compliance judging AND time given to rectify any infringement (Refer ARTICLE C4.1.4.2), a team’s trial ready water craft is judged as being NON-COMPLIANT with any critical technical regulation, a Time Penalty of 30 seconds per infringement will apply to voyage trials. The time penalty is a reduction to the time allowed to complete the voyage trials.C9�2�3�2 Human InterventionIf at any point during a trial the trial judge or a team member is required to physically intervene with the water craft, the team will incur a 30 second penalty for each intervention. Trial judges MAY intervene at their discretion or by request from the team. This time penalty includes interventions for the purpose of repairs. For Level 2 competition, teams MAY only interact with the ROV to remove an object once the ROV is on the surface of the water, and at the required location. Any other interaction will incur a 30 second penalty. The time penalty is a reduction to the time allowed to complete the current trial.

C9�2�4 Safety ChecksAll water craft will be checked for safety prior to conducting trials. If the judges have any safety concerns, teams MUST rectify the issue before they are allowed to start the trial.Unresolved safety concerns WILL prohibit the team from attempting the trial and WILL result in zero points being awarded for the trial.

C9�2�5 Did Not Start (DNS)Water craft deemed unsafe or ineligible to start the trial by judges will be classified as Did Not Start (DNS) in trial events.

C9�2�6 Did Not Finish (DNF)The following scenarios result in a DNF:

• Repairs that exceed 15 minutes.• Water craft unable to finish the course.• A DNF result signals the finish of a trial event. Teams will still receive any points gained

prior to the DNF result, but will not be able to continue and will receive the minimum score for trial time (if relevant).

[30 sec Time Penalty]

[30 sec Time Penalty]


C9�2�7 Manual / Pilot StartsAt least one team member (pilot) must be appointed for operating the teams’ water craft. The pilot/s MUST stand within the dedicated starting area. However they are free to move as necessary while the water craft is underway

C9�2�8 Finish Line ManagementAt least one member of the team MUST be appointed as responsible for managing the finish line and retrieving the water craft from the water.

C9�2�9 Start Line Water Craft stagingOne team member MAY be appointed as being responsible for ‘staging’ the water craft. System checks MAY be performed during this time. However, prior to trial commencement, the watercraft must have a portion of the PVC body visible above the waterline and SHALL NOT be supported by a team member. The watercraft cannot start moving until this is achieved. After the 2 minute staging time is exhausted, if the watercraft is not ready to commence the trial a DNS result will be recorded.

C9�3 Level 2 Trial Procedure (ROV Class)For level 2 competition, the ROV will be required to travel underneath the surface of the water and perform a series of tasks. The ROV SHOULD be designed in order to competently complete these tasks.

C9�3�1 Trial Order (ROV Class)• Flotation and Water Column Positioning Trial (4 minute maximum)• Submerged Manoeuvring Trial (4 minute maximum)• Retrieval Voyage Trial (Timed)

Maximum time for the Retrieval Voyage Trial will be defined during a competition briefing, expected to be 6 to 8 minutes.

C9�3�2 Retrieval Voyage Layout Teams may navigate the area and complete the tasks in whatever order they choose.

C9�3�2�1 WreckThe simulated wreck will be comprised of a wheelie bin turned on its back with the lid open on the course floor. A code will be printed and placed inside and at the base of thebin.

C9�3�2�2 ObjectsThe ROV will retrieve THREE objects from the bottom of the pool. These objects will vary in size and shape.Two of these objects will be attached to a ring suspended 100mm above the object, the other object will be resting on the bottom of the pool.

Trials | Article C9


C9�3�2�3 Button Activation The ROV MUST locate and activate a button under the water. The button “activation” will be simulated by an element of the ROV fully penetrating a horizontal hole in a shaft (visual confirmation). The shaft will be 100mm in depth and 30mm in diameter (no force activation required). C9�3�2�4 Trial ProcedureThe trial events will be conducted using the following basic procedure:

1� Teams attempt trials in the order as shown in the competition program.

2� One team member to manage start.

3� The team is allowed 2 minutes to prepare the ROV on the water surface for the trial start.

4� Trial begins on judges instruction to release, with the ROV on the surface in the designated start location.

5� Judge manages and records TRIAL TIME, adds any incurred time penalties and calls time if necessary.

6� Team member at finish removes the ROV from the water concluding the trial event.

7� ROV servicing/repairs conducted where necessary.

8� Additional trial attempts MAY be conducted using the same process as above according to the schedule and available time.

9� If multiple trial attempts are made, the highest scoring trial score will count for that trial.

C9�4 Level 2 Trial Scoring (ROV Class)C9�4�1 Flotation and Water Column Positioning Trial (4 minute maximum)

• Move to surface and hold position 5 Points• Move to bottom and hold position 5 Points• Move to mid depth and hold position 5 Points• Return to surface and hold position 5 Points

C9�4�2 Submerged Manoeuvring Trial (4 minute maximum)• Move ahead 5 Points• Move astern 5 Points• Turn to port 5 Points• Turn to starboard 5 Points

C9�4�3 Retrieval Voyage Trial (8 minute maximum)C9�4�3�1 Visual Confirmation 50 PointsThe ROV will locate a simulated wreck and capture visual information of the wreck interior. The ROV will need to capture a 5-digit code from inside the wreck. The code will need to be presented to the judges during or immediately after the timed Trial event. 10 Points will be awarded for each correct digit in its correct place. Refer to ARTICLE C9.3.2.1 for wreck details.C9�4�3�2 Objects 30 PointsThe ROV must collect these objects and deliver them to retrieval deck on the surface of the water. Teams may only retrieve the objects from their ROV once the ROV has broken the water surface and is within 300mm of the retrieval deck. 10 Points will be awarded for each object delivered to the deck.C9�4�3�3 Button Activation 20 Points20 Points will be awarded for successful button activation. C9�4�3�4 Retrieval Voyage Timing 60 PointsTeams will be awarded points based on their time to complete the voyage. Time begins when the ROV is released and concludes when the ROV completes its final task. Teams will be ranked by the number of tasks completed and where a tied result exists, the fastest time will be used to rank the teams. See the sample ranking matrix below.

Article C9 | Trials


Points will be awarded based on finish placings. To receive timing points a minimum of 3 tasks MUST be completed. Points are distributed as below:

DNF6th

and below5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st

10 30 35 40 45 50 60

Sample Ranking

Team Tasks Completed Trial Time Rank Points

Team 1 5 7:20 1 60

Team 2 5 7:30 2 50

Team 3 4 7:00 3 45

Team 4 4 7:15 4 40

Team 5 4 7:35 5 35

Team 6 4 7:50 6 30

Team 7 3 6:00 7 30

Team 8 3 6:35 8 30

Team 9 3 7:00 9 30

Team 10 3 DNF 10 10

C9�4�3�5 3 Team Member PilotsA minimum of 3 team members MUST be used to control the ROV during the voyage trial. Each pilot SHOULD complete at least one task.

C9�5 Level 4 Trial Procedure (Submarine Class)For level 4 competition, the submarine will be required to perform a number of trials and then manoeuvre around a set course on a voyage. Teams will progress through the four trials in the order listed.

C9�5�1 Trial Order (Submarine Class)• Surface Manoeuvring Trial• Flotation And Ballasting Trial• Submerged Manoeuvring Trial • Timed Way point Voyage• Way Point Voyage Layout

The layout will be revealed to teams on the day of the competition. Below is an example of a course layout, this shows the course route but does not show the depth at each point.

C9�5�1�1 Voyage GatesThe route is marked by gates indicating the specified way points. These gates include a port and starboard upright, and their upper and lower limits are marked by horizontal beams. The required depth of the submarine will vary across the voyage.

[10pt Penalty if 2 members used][20pt Penalty if 1 member used]

Trials | Article C9

TYPICAL AREA LAYOUT


C9�5�1�2 Gate DesignThe gate is designed with an upper and lower limit, stipulating the depth at which the sub MUST pass through. The upper limit is designed with a break to allow trailing aerials to pass through.

Front View of submarine passing through gate Top View of submarine passing through gate

C9�5�1�3 Gate ContactTeams will be required to navigate their submarine through each gate without the submarine making contact with the gate(with the exception of the trailing aerial). The water craft MUST be entirely submerged whilst passing through each gate. Teams will receive points for each gate successfully completed.C9�5�1�4 DockingTeams will be required to park their submarine in a dock with nominally zero trim and heel, to signal the start and finish of the trial. The submarine must be fully contained and be stationary within the dock to start and finish the trial. Teams will receive 10 points for successfully leaving and returning to the designated dock(s). Alternatively, teams that cannot dock can start and finish in an alternate area, announced during the competition, to stop the timer.The dock dimensions are as follows:500mm Width x 1200mm Length.C9�5�1�5 Trial ProcedureThe Trial events will be conducted using the following procedure:

1� Teams attempt trials in the order as shown in the competition program.

2� One team member to manage dock.

3� The team is allowed 2 minutes to prepare the submarine for the voyage in the dock.

4� Trial begins on judges instruction with the submarine floating on the surface in the dock with nominally zero trim and heel.

5� Judge manages and records TRIAL TIME, adds any incurred time penalties and calls time if necessary.

6� Team member at finish removes the submarine as directed by the judge concluding the trial event.

7� Submarine servicing/repairs conducted where necessary.

Article C9 | Trials


8� Additional trial attempts MAY be conducted using the same process as above according to the schedule and available time.

9� If multiple trial attempts are made, the highest scoring trial score will count for that trial.

C9�6 Level 4 Trial ScoringC9�6�1 Surface Manoeuvring Trial (4 minute maximum)

• Move ahead 5 Points• Move astern 5 Points• Turn to port 5 Points• Turn to starboard 5 Points

C9�6�2 Flotation And Ballasting Trial (4 minute maximum) • Float at level trim and minimal heel indefinitely 5 Points• Ballast to mid depth and hold position indefinitely 5 Points• Sit on bottom indefinitely 5 Points• Return to surface with level trim and minimal heel 5 Points

C9�6�3 Submerged Manoeuvring Trial (4 minute maximum) • Porpoise (with constant slow ahead speed dive, level out at mid depth, resurface) – aim

to demonstrate hydroplanes 10 Points• At mid depth, move astern 10 Points• At mid depth, turn to port 10 Points• At mid depth, turn to starboard 10 Points

C9�6�4 Timed Way Point Voyage (6 minute maximum)• Accuracy - Passing through gates going forward to score 60 Points (10 per gate)• Departure and Arrival - Docking 10 Points• Time 50 Points

Teams will be awarded points based on how quickly they can complete the voyage. Time begins when the water craft is positioned in the dock and concludes when the water craft reaches the finishing position. Teams will be ranked by the number of gates successfully navigated and where a tied result exists, the fastest time will be used to rank the teams. See the sample ranking matrix below. Points will be awarded based on finish placings. To receive timing points a minimum of 3 gates MUST be successfully navigated. Points are distributed as below:

DNF6th

and below5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st

10 20 25 30 35 40 50

C9�6�5 Sample RankingTeam Gates Completed Trial Time Rank Points

Team 1 6 5:20 1 50

Team 2 6 5:30 2 40

Team 3 5 5:00 3 35

Team 4 5 5:15 4 30

Team 5 4 5:35 5 25

Team 6 4 5:50 6 20

Team 7 3 4:00 7 20

Team 8 3 4:35 8 20

Team 9 3 5:00 9 20

Team 10 3 DNF 10 10

At the judges discretion, depending on environmental constraints, penalty free assistance via manual turning of boats may be allowed during voyage.

Trials | Article C9


C9�6�6 3 Member Pilots

A minimum of 3 team members MUST be used to control the submarine during the trial voyage. Each pilot SHOULD navigate through at least one gate.

C9�7 Pre-Competition Testing EvidenceIf teams fail to complete a trial(excluding voyage) they may submit video evidence of their submarine completing these tasks in testing. For every task completed in the video teams will receive 25% of the total points available for that specific task.

ARTICLE C10 - WATER CRAFT REPAIRS / SERVICING

C10�1 Water craft repairsC10�1�1 Judges’ DiscretionAll damage issues and related repair work during trials is at the Judge’s discretion and may be referred to the scrutineering Judges and/or Chair of Judges for a final decision.

C10�1�2 Removing/Replacing PartsNo parts/components can be removed or replaced on a watercraft during trials, except in the case of a repair.

C10�1�3 RepairsC10�1�3�1 Engineering DeficiencyIf the watercraft sustains damage during trials it MAY be repaired within the allocated trial time limit. It will then be allowed to continue the trial for the remaining time. The water craft MAY only continue if all components are fitted.

• Level 2 ROVThe trial will recommence from the ROV’s trial starting position.

• Level 4 SUBSThe trial will recommence from the last gate that was passed prior to the submarine being removed from the course.

C10�1�3�2 Non-Engineering DeficiencyIf the judges rule that damage sustained was not due to engineering deficiencies, immediate repairs will be permitted without penalty.

ARTICLE C11 - GRIEVANCES

C11�1 ProcedureC11�1�1 Specifications Compliance Related

1� Following the Specifications Compliance judging and prior to the commencement of trials, teams found to have failed any critical regulations will be handed a form listing all infringements.

a� This document WILL NOT contain infringements of non-critical regulations.

b� It is the responsibility of team members to read, identify and respond to all of the infringements relating to failed critical regulations.

2� As per ARTICLE C4.1.4.2, teams will be given a special 20 minutes water craft servicing time to modify the water craft so as to comply with the failed regulation/s. Students will need to complete the form provided and hand it back to the supervising Scrutineer within the allocated 20 minutes.

3� Scrutineers will then recheck the water craft for compliance and teams will be advised of the outcome as soon as possible thereafter.

4� Should a team be dissatisfied with the decision of the Lead Scrutineer, an appeal MAY be submitted in writing by the advertised deadline using the official on-line Grievance Form. Refer ARTICLE C2.4.1.5.

5� The Chair of Judges will discuss the appeal with the scrutineers and may seek additional advice from REA Foundation Ltd. regulation authorities. The Chair of Judges will then meet with the team, to discuss the appeal and explain the final decision.

C11�2 Non Specifications RelatedSubmitted by the advertised deadline using the official on-line Grievance Form.

[10pt Penalty if 2 members used][20pt Penalty if 1 member used]

Article C10 | Water Craft Repairs / Servicing & Grievances


C11�3 Judge’s DecisionThe Chair of Judges decision related to any grievance is final and no further discussion will be entered into.

ARTICLE C12 - JUDGES

C12�1 OverviewThere will be several teams of judges that form the entire judging panel Judges are generally higher education and industry experts invited by REA Foundation Ltd. They are selected and appointed to teams based on their qualifications and experience. All judges undertake a comprehensive briefing prior to the competition and are required to declare any conflicts of interest with respect to the teams they are judging. Where a conflict of interest MAY occur, the judge is required to step back from judging the relevant team/s.Some judges MAY perform a dual role. For example, undertake the specifications compliance of water craft AND Engineering judging.Each judging category will have one judge appointed as the Lead Judge.

C12�2 Chair of JudgesAn independent authority appointed by REA Foundation Ltd. to oversee all judging procedures. The Chair of Judges will determine the final judging decision where a grievance has been submitted or other judging issue needs resolution. The Chair of Judges will also preside over a meeting of all Lead Judges to ratify the final results and work with the Competition Director to ensure all scores are entered correctly into a spread sheet to identify awards winners.

C12�3 The Judging TeamsC12�3�1 Specifications JudgesWill scrutinise each water craft with respect to the Australian Technical Regulations.

C12�3�2 Engineering JudgesWill assess each team’s use of CAD/CAM, CNC technologies, quality of manufacture, engineering design process and VR Walk Through.

C12�3�3 Portfolio JudgesPortfolio Judges will assess each team’s portfolio design and project management as per the Portfolio score card.

C12�3�4 Marketing JudgesMarketing Judges will assess each team’s branding and trade display as per the Marketing score card.

C12�3�5 Verbal Presentation JudgesVerbal presentation Judges will assess each team’s presentation technique and content as per the verbal presentation score card.

C12�3�6 Trial JudgesWill oversee and rule on all trial events and any incidents.

C12�3�7 Water Craft Servicing JudgesWater craft Servicing Judges will oversee all water craft service activities and rule on any infringements that MAY occur.

C12�4 Judging DecisionsTHE DECISION OF THE JUDGES IS FINAL.

ARTICLE C13 - AWARDS

C13�1 Awards CelebrationAt each State and National Final, an Awards Presentation is conducted, the timing of which is included in the Event Programme which is released closer to the event.At some National Finals, the Awards Presentation is combined with a Gala Dinner Celebration.

Judges | Article C11


C13�2 Participation RecognitionAt State and National Finals, all students, supervising teachers and judges will receive official participation/recognition certificates. These will be provided in the team and judge information packs.Students participating at a National Final MAY also receive participation medallions presented at the Awards Presentation ceremony.

C13�3 Prizes and TrophiesC13�3�1 State FinalsAt State Finals, teams winning an award will be presented with an A4 certificate only.

C13�3�2 National FinalsAt National Finals, winning teams will be presented with an A3 framed certificate as well as individual award medallions. Post event, all team members will be sent individual A4 certificates.

C13�3�3 Perpetual TrophiesPerpetual Trophies are presented for some but NOT all awards at National Finals ONLY. Teams receiving these trophies are responsible for having their team details engraved upon the trophy using identical material/engraving plates to maintain consistency of appearance. The teacher/school is responsible for returning the trophy to REA Foundation Ltd. prior to the following National Final.

C13�4 List of Awards to be Presented1� Eligibility for winning awards, requires teams to achieve at least 60% of the total mark used

to calculate overall 1st, 2nd and 3rd placings and Category Awards

2� Teams with unresolved Critical Regulation violations will NOT be eligible to win Engineering related awards Refer ARTICLE C3.9.1

3� In situations where there are five or less teams representing a competition class, overall 2nd and 3rd place, along with some category awards MAY NOT be presented. This will be at the discretion of the Chair of Judges.

C13�4�1 Level 2 Large ROV (Development & Professional Class Teams)BEST TRIAL AWARD

The team with highest score for the trial event

BEST ENGINEERED AWARDTeam with highest combined score for:

Criteria 1: Engineering/SpecificationsCriteria 2: Engineering/Computer Aided Design (CAD)

Criteria 3: Engineering/ManufacturingCriteria 4: Engineering/ Design Process

BEST ENGINEERING CAD AWARDTeam with highest score for:

Criteria 2: Engineering/Computer Aided Design (CAD)

BEST MANUFACTURED ROV AWARDTeam with highest score for:

Criteria 3: Engineering/Manufacturing

3RD PLACETeam with the third highest scoring sum of all marking criteria

2ND PLACETeam with the second highest scoring sum of all marking criteria

CHAMPIONSTeam with the highest scoring sum of all marking criteria

C13�4�2 Level 3 Spatial DesignBEST VIRTUAL 3D MODEL

Team with highest combined score for:Criteria 2: Engineering/Computer Aided Design (CAD)

Criteria 4: Engineering/ Design Process




Articles C12 & 13 | Awards


Awards | Article C13

C13�4�3 Level 4 SubmarineBEST TRIAL AWARD

The team with highest score for the trial event

BEST ENGINEERED AWARDTeam with highest combined score for:

Criteria 1: Engineering/SpecificationsCriteria 2: Engineering/Computer Aided Design (CAD)

Criteria 3: Engineering/ManufacturingCriteria 4: Engineering/ Design Process

BEST ENGINEERING CAD AWARDTeam with highest score for:

Criteria 2: Engineering/Computer Aided Design (CAD)

BEST MANUFACTURED ROV AWARDTeam with highest score for:

Criteria 3: Engineering/Manufacturing




C13�4�4 Overall Category AwardsNote: Futher to C13.4(3), category award winners MAY be selected by combining results from all levels of the

competition (excluding Level 2 Development Class).

BEST TEAM PORTFOLIO AWARDTeam with highest combined score for:

Criteria 4: Engineering Design ProcessCriteria 5: Portfolio/Project Management

Criteria 6: Portfolio/Portfolio Design

AIPM: BEST MANAGED ENTERPRISE AWARDTeam with highest score for:

Criteria 5: Portfolio/Project Management, excluding 5.8

VISUAL CONNECTIONS: BEST GRAPHIC DESIGN AWARDTeam with highest combined score for:

Criteria 6: Portfolio/Portfolio DesignCriteria 7: Marketing/Branding

Criteria 8.3, 8.4, 8.5 & 8.6: Marketing/Trade Display

BEST TEAM MARKETING AWARDTeam with highest combined score for:

Criteria 7: Marketing/BrandingCriteria 8: Marketing/Trade Display

Criteria 5.5: Portfolio/Project ManagementCriteria 7.1, 7.2 &7.3: Marketing/Branding

BEST TEAM TRADE DISPLAY AWARDTeam with highest combined score for:

Criteria 8: Marketing/Trade Display

BEST TEAM VERBAL PRESENTATIONTeam with highest combined score for:

Criteria 9: Verbal Presentation/Presentation TechniqueCriteria 10: Verbal Presentation/Content

OUTSTANDING INDUSTRY COLLABORATION AWARDTeam with highest score for:

Criteria 10.5: Verbal Presentation/Content

INNOVATION AWARDTeam with highest score for:

Criteria 10.3 & 10.4: Verbal Presentation /Content

CHAIR OF JUDGES RECOGNITION OF ACHIEVEMENT AWARDDiscretion of the Chair of Judges

BEST NEWCOMER AWARD19

Highest scoring team from school attending the National Final for the first time

19 Only awarded at a National Final


ARTICLE C14 - APPENDICES

C14�1 Development Class Trade Displays

The intent of these amended regulations is to reduce the cost and complexity for Development Class teams participating in the competition. These restrictions ONLY apply to State Final competitions. State Final ArrangementsAt State Final events, REA Foundation Ltd will supply Development Class teams with fabric covered backboards with nominal dimensions of 2000mm (L) x 2400mm (H). Development Class teams MAY ONLY use 1800mm of the provided length situated immediately behind a supplied Trestle Table of the same length.Development Class teams MUST use a REA supplied trestle table at State Final events with nominal dimensions of 1800mm (L) x 750m (W) x 730mm (H). REA do NOT supply table cloths

Within the provided display, Development Class teams will ONLY be permitted to:

1� Display upon the backboard of the display within the identified 1800mm length, using ANY material no thicker than 10mm

2� Display upon the trestle table within the identified area with no separate or combined display item/s being higher than 500mm�

3� Display at the front of the trestle table within the identified 1800mm length using ANY material no thicker than 10mm affixed or resting against the Trestle Table at 90° to the floor.

No other areas/surfaces within the display space provided can be used. The volume underneath the table can be used for storage ONLY but stored contents MUST NOT be visible from front or side view at ANY time throughout the event.

National Final ArrangementsAt National Finals, Development Class teams will be provided with a full shell scheme Trade Display with fascia. No restrictions other than those general conditions listed at ARTICLE C.7.4.4 will apply. Development Class teams are eligible to use the entire volume of the booth as per Professional Class provisions.NO Trestle Tables will be supplied to Development Class teams at a National Final. Teams MUST construct their own display furniture to meet the maximum internal dimensions and fit within the volume of the display space provided.

Article C13 | Appendices


C14�2 Shell Scheme Trade DisplayThe diagrams below shows the nominal external dimensions and maximum internal build dimensions of the shell scheme trade display used for Professional Class teams at state finals and all teams at the National Final.

2400

mm

2 0 0 0mm

1940mm

2050

mm

1 0 3 0mm

1000mm

960m

m 1000

mm

1 9 40mm

1000mm

Staging Volume (Shaded)

Appendices | Article C14


C14�3 Awards Matrix - Level 2 & 4 ROV & SUBSROV & Submarine Awards

Judging Category Judging Category Criteria Cham

pion

s2n

d Pl

ace

3rd

Plac

eBe

st N

ewco

mer

Best

Eng

inee

red

Best

Eng

inee

ring

CAD

Best

Man

ufac

ture

d W

ater

craf

tBe

st T

rial

Best

Man

aged

Ent

erpr

ise

Best

Tea

m P

ortfo

lioBe

st G

raph

ic D

esig

nBe

st T

eam

Mar

ketin

gBe

st T

eam

Tra

de D

ispl

ayBe

st T

eam

Ver

bal P

rese

ntat

ion

Out

stan

ding

Indu

stry

Col

labo

ratio

nIn

nova

tion

Engineering Specifications 1 SpecificationsEngineering Computer Aided Design 2.1 Application of CAD

2.2 CAD Organisation2.3 CAD Based Analysis2.4 Overall CAD Technical Merit2.5 CAD Model v's Finished Product2.6 Orthographic 2.7 Rendering

Engineering Manufacturing 3.1 Application of CAD/CAM3.2 Manufacturing Process Car Body3.3 Manufacturing Process Other Components3.4 Tolerancing/Quality Control3.5 Manufacturing Technical Merit3.6 Quality of Finished Product - Geometry/Form3.7 Quality of Finished Product - Surface Finish

Engineering Design Process 4.1 Requirements Analysis4.2 Ideas4.3 Development4.4 Analysis4.5 Physical Testing4.6 Evaluation4.7 Overall Design Technical Merit

Portfolio Project Management 5.1 Team Roles & Tasks5.2 Scope5.3 Time Management5.4 Finance5.5 Risk Management5.6 Internal Communications5.7 Stakeholder Engagement5.8 Defence Industry Mentors & Collaborators5.9 Evaluation

Portfolio Portfolio Design 6.1 Production Quality of Materials6.2 Production Quality of Content6.3 Content Organisation6.4 Layout Design6.5 Typography6.6 Photos & Images6.7 Creative Graphics6.8 Editing/Proofreading6.9 Referencing/Plagiarism6.10 Writing & Readability

Marketing Branding 7.1 Team Name7.2 Logo Development7.3 Final Logo Design7.4 Logo Application7.5 Team Branding7.6 Media Exposure7.7 Team Sponsors & REA Corporate Partners ROI7.8 Team Uniform7.9 Team Presence7.10 Team Knowledge

Marketing Trade Display 8.1 Trade Display Design Development8.2 Water Craft Display8.3 Information Design8.4 Use of ICT’s8.5 Visual Design & Impact8.6 Structural Design20 8.7 Materials Selection & Use8.8 Sustainability8.9 Packaging Restrictions

Verbal Presentation Technique 9.1 Presentation Energy9.2 Team Contribution9.3 Visual Aids9.4 Audience Engagement9.5 Articulation9.6 Structure9.7 Use of Time

Verbal Presentation Content 10.1 Team Objectives10.2 Description of Car Product10.3 Innovation10.4 Refinement10.5 Collaboration10.6 Learning Outcomes10.7 Future Career Aspirations & Research10.8 Overall Clarity

Practical Demonstration Trials 11.1 ROV: Object Retrieval SUB: Course Travel11.2 ROV: Visual Confirmation SUB: Diving11.3 ROV: Button Activation SUB: Docking11.4 ROV & SUB: Timing

20 Not applicable to Development Class teams at State Finals



C14�4 Awards Matrix - Level 3 Spatial DesignSpatial Design Awards

Judging Category Judging Category Criteria Cham

pions

2nd P

lace

3rd P

lace

Best

Newc

omer

Best

Virtu

al 3D

Mod

elBe

st Ma

nage

d Ent

erpr

iseBe

st Te

am P

ortfo

lioBe

st Gr

aphic

Des

ignBe

st Te

am M

arke

ting

Best

Team

Trad

e Disp

layBe

st Te

am Ve

rbal

Pres

entat

ionOu

tstan

ding I

ndus

try C

ollab

orati

onInn

ovati

on

Engineering Computer Aided Design 2.1 Design Intent2.2 Model Detaiil2.3 Explanation of Model Layout2.4 Understanding of Human Ergonomics2.5 Use of Human Mannequins to Highlight Design Intent2.6 Evaluation2.7 Overall Design Technical Merit

Engineering Design Process 4.1 Design Specification4.2 Ideas4.3 Development4.4 Analysis4.5 Physical Testing4.6 Evaluation4.7 Overall Design Technical Merit

Portfolio Project Management 5.1 Team Roles & Tasks5.2 Scope5.3 Time Management5.4 Finance5.5 Risk Management5.6 Internal Communications5.7 Stakeholder Engagement5.8 Defence Industry Mentors & Collaborators5.9 Evaluation

Portfolio Portfolio Design 6.1 Production Quality of Materials6.2 Production Quality of Content6.3 Content Organisation6.4 Layout Design6.5 Typography6.6 Photos & Images6.7 Creative Graphics6.8 Editing/Proofreading6.9 Referencing/Plagiarism6.10 Writing & Readability

Marketing Branding 7.1 Team Name7.2 Logo Development7.3 Final Logo Design7.4 Logo Application7.5 Team Branding7.6 Media Exposure7.7 Team Sponsors & REA Corporate Partners ROI7.8 Team Uniform7.9 Team Presence7.10 Team Knowledge

Marketing Trade Display 8.1 Trade Display Design Development8.2 Product Display8.3 Information Design8.4 Use of ICT’s8.5 Visual Design & Impact8.6 Structural Design1

8.7 Materials Selection & Use8.8 Sustainability8.9 Packaging Restrictions

Verbal Presentation Technique 9.1 Presentation Energy9.2 Team Contribution9.3 Visual Aids9.4 Audience Engagement9.5 Articulation9.6 Structure9.7 Use of Time

Verbal Presentation Content 10.1 Team Objectives10.2 Description of Car Product10.3 Innovation10.4 Refinement10.5 Collaboration10.6 Learning Outcomes10.7 Future Career Aspirations & Research10.8 Overall Clarity

1 Not applicable to Development Class teams at State Finals


20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s4

2

C14

�5

Dev

elop

men

t Cla

ss P

ortfo

lio C

onte

nt P

age

Plan

LEVE

L 2

ROV

(Dev

) Por

tfolio

Pag

e Co

nten

t Pla

n: Su

gges

ted

cont

ent o

rgan

isatio

n fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ente

rpris

e Po

rtfol

io:

Pr

ojec

t Man

agem

ent &

Car

eer D

evel

opm

ent

M

arketin

g&Partnerships

Engi

neer

ing

Portf

olio

:

En

gine

eringDe

signProcess

Team

Mgt:R

oles,

Respon

sibilitie

s&

Interacti

on

***

Tim

e, F

inan

ce, R

isk

Com

ms,

Mgt

Too

ls &

M

etho

ds, E

valu

ation

*

Link

ing

Skill

s w

ith

Futu

re C

aree

rs

*

Stak

ehol

der R

OI

Plan

& C

omm

unity

Ac

tivity

/ PR

**

Team

Nam

e, L

ogo,

Br

andi

ng, U

nifo

rm &

Tr

ade

Boot

h

***

Part

ners

hips

with

Ex

tern

al In

divi

dual

s &

Col

labo

ratio

ns

*

Cove

r:*Re

nder

ing

Nam

e &

Log

o

***

Wat

er C

raft

Desig

nRe

quire

men

ts &

Re

sear

ch

***

Wat

er C

raft

Desig

n Id

eas

***

Wat

er C

raft

Man

ufac

turin

g

***

Wat

er C

raft

Desig

n Ph

ysic

al T

estin

g &

Ev

alua

tion

***

Free

for t

eam

s to

de

cide

con

tent

To st

ream

line

the

judg

ing

proc

ess,

team

s ar

e en

cour

aged

to a

rran

ge th

e co

nten

t of t

heir

Ente

rpris

e an

d En

gine

erin

g Po

rtfol

ios

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

is Co

nten

t Pla

n. H

owev

er th

e nu

mbe

r of p

ages

allo

cate

d to

the

sugg

este

d cr

iteria

abo

ve is

at t

he d

iscre

tion

of e

ach

team

. Tea

ms

shou

ld e

nsur

e th

ey re

fer t

o th

e sc

orec

ard

crite

ria C

ompo

nent

s of

the

Cove

r are

criti

cal t

o bo

th th

e En

terp

rise

& E

ngin

eerin

g Po

rtfol

ios

Pink

– P

ortfo

lio c

onte

nt a

sses

sed

in P

ortfo

lio c

riter

iaBl

ue –

Por

tfolio

con

tent

ass

esse

d in

Boo

th c

riter

iaRe

d –

Portf

olio

con

tent

ass

esse

d in

Eng

inee

ring

crite

riaG

reen

– A

sses

sed

in M

arke

ting

crite

ria

Wat

er C

raft

Desig

nDe

velo

pmen

t &

Anal

ysis

***

Cove

r:*N

ame

& L

ogo

***

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s4

3

C14

�6

Prof

essi

onal

Cla

ss P

ortfo

lio C

onte

nt P

age

Plan

LEVE

L 2

ROV

(Pro

) & L

EVEL

4 S

UB:

Por

tfolio

Pag

e Co

nten

t Pla

n: Su

gges

ted

cont

ent o

rgan

isatio

n fo

r ass

essm

ent

Ente

rpris

e Po

rtfol

io:

Pr

ojec

t Man

agem

ent &

Car

eer D

evel

opm

ent

M

arketin

g&Partnerships

Engi

neer

ing

Portf

olio

:

En

gine

eringDe

signProcess

Team

Mgt:R

oles,

Respon

sibilitie

s&

Interacti

on

***

Proj

ect S

cope

&

Tim

e M

anag

emen

t To

ols

/ Met

hods

*

Team

Fin

ance

s, R

isk

Man

agem

ent

Tool

s &

Met

hods

*

Com

mun

icati

on

Tool

s &

Met

hods

Ev

alua

tion

*

Link

ing

Skill

s w

ith

Futu

re C

aree

rs

*

Team

Sta

keho

lder

RO

I Pla

n &

Acti

vity

**

Team

Com

mun

ity

Activ

ity/ P

R &

Soc

ial

Med

ia *

Team

Nam

e, L

ogo

&

Bran

ding

***

Uni

form

&Bo

oth

Desig

n

*

Part

ners

hips

with

Ex

tern

al In

divi

dual

s &

Col

labo

ratio

ns

*

Cove

r:*Re

nder

ing

Nam

e &

Log

o

***

Wat

er C

raft

Desig

nRe

quire

men

ts &

Re

sear

ch

***

Wat

er C

raft

Desig

n Id

eas

***

Wat

er C

raft

Desig

nDe

velo

pmen

t

*

Wat

er C

raft

Desig

nDe

velo

pmen

t

***

Wat

er C

raft

Desig

nAn

alys

is

***

Wat

er C

raft

Man

ufac

turin

g

***

Wat

er C

raft

Man

ufac

turin

g

***

Wat

er C

raft

Desig

n Ph

ysic

al T

estin

g

***

Wat

er C

raft

Proc

ess

Eval

uatio

n

***

Free

for t

eam

s to

de

cide

con

tent

To st

ream

line

the

judg

ing

proc

ess,

team

s ar

e en

cour

aged

to a

rran

ge th

e co

nten

t of t

heir

Ente

rpris

e an

d En

gine

erin

g Po

rtfol

ios

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

is Co

nten

t Pla

n. H

owev

er th

e nu

mbe

r of p

ages

allo

cate

d to

the

sugg

este

d cr

iteria

abo

ve is

at t

he d

iscre

tion

of e

ach

team

. Tea

ms

shou

ld e

nsur

e th

ey re

fer t

o th

e sc

orec

ard

crite

ria C

ompo

nent

s of

the

Cove

r are

criti

cal t

o bo

th th

e En

terp

rise

& E

ngin

eerin

g Po

rtfol

ios

Pink

– P

ortfo

lio c

onte

nt a

sses

sed

in P

ortfo

lio c

riter

iaBl

ue –

Por

tfolio

con

tent

ass

esse

d in

Boo

th c

riter

iaRe

d –

Portf

olio

con

tent

ass

esse

d in

Eng

inee

ring

crite

riaG

reen

– A

sses

sed

in M

arke

ting

crite

ria

Cove

r:*N

ame

& L

ogo

***

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

C14

�7

Port

folio

Pag

e C

onte

nt P

lan

- Lev

el 3

Spa

tial D

esig

n

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

19 L

eve

ls 2

, 3 &

4 C

om

pet

itio

n R

eg

ula

tio

ns

44

LEVE

L 3

Spati

al D

esig

n: P

ortfo

lio P

age

Cont

ent P

lan

Sugg

este

d co

nten

t org

anisa

tion

for a

sses

smen

t

Ente

rpris

e Po

rtfol

io:

ProjectM

anagem

ent&

Skillsfo

rFutureCa

reers

M

arketin

g&Partnerships

Engi

neer

ing

Portf

olio

:

En

gine

eringDe

signProcess

To st

ream

line

the

judg

ing

proc

ess,

team

s are

enc

oura

ged

to a

rran

ge th

e co

nten

t of t

heir

Ente

rpris

e an

d En

gine

erin

g Po

rtfol

ios

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

is Co

nten

t Pla

n. H

owev

er th

e nu

mbe

r of p

ages

allo

cate

d to

the

sugg

este

d cr

iteria

abo

ve is

at t

he d

iscre

tion

of e

ach

team

. Tea

ms

shou

ld e

nsur

e th

ey re

fer t

o th

e sc

orec

ard

crite

ria C

ompo

nent

s of

the

Cove

r are

criti

cal t

o bo

th th

e En

terp

rise

& E

ngin

eerin

g Po

rtfol

ios

Pink

– P

ortfo

lio c

onte

nt a

sses

sed

in P

ortfo

lio c

riter

iaBl

ue –

Por

tfolio

con

tent

ass

esse

d in

Boo

th c

riter

iaRe

d –

Portf

olio

con

tent

ass

esse

d in

Eng

inee

ring

crite

riaG

reen

– A

sses

sed

in M

arke

ting

crite

ria

Team

Mgt:R

oles,

Respon

sibilitie

s&

Interacti

on

**

Proj

ect S

cope

&

Tim

e M

anag

emen

t To

ols

/ Met

hods

*

Team

Fin

ance

s, R

isk

Man

agem

ent

Tool

s &

Met

hods

*

Com

mun

icati

on

Tool

s &

Met

hods

*

Link

ing

Skill

s w

ith

Futu

re C

aree

rs

*

Cove

r:*N

ame

& L

ogo

***

Team

Sta

keho

lder

RO

I Pla

n &

Acti

vity

**

Team

Com

mun

ity

Activ

ity/ P

R &

Soc

ial

Med

ia *

Team

Nam

e, L

ogo

&

Bran

ding

***

Uni

form

& B

ooth

De

sign

*

Part

ners

hips

with

Ex

tern

al In

divi

dual

s &

Col

labo

ratio

ns

*

Cove

r:*Re

nder

ing

Nam

e &

Log

o

***

Desig

n Sp

ecs

Requ

irem

ents

***

Desig

n &

Fac

tors

Re

sear

ch

***

Conc

ept T

rade

Offs

an

d Su

stai

nabi

lity

***

Desig

nDe

velo

pmen

tH

uman

Fac

tors

***

Desig

n an

d Co

ncep

t Id

eas

***

Desig

nDe

velo

pmen

tH

uman

Fac

tors

***

Desig

nDe

velo

pmen

tAm

eniti

es/S

ervi

ces

***

Inno

vatio

n/Re

finem

ent

***

Desig

n Ev

alua

tion

***

Free

for t

eam

s to

de

cide

con

tent

20

19 L

eve

ls 2

, 3 &

4 C

om

pet

itio

n R

eg

ula

tio

ns

45

C14

�8

Crit

eria

1 -

Spec

ifica

tions

Com

plia

nce

Scor

e C

ard

(Lev

el 2

: RO

V C

lass

)

JUD

GIN

G S

UB

CA

TE

GO

RY

Sp

ec

ific

at

ion

ST

EA

M ID

PR

IMA

RY

EV

IDE

NC

ER

oV

TE

AM

NA

ME

SE

CO

ND

AR

Y E

VID

EN

CE

en

gin

ee

Rin

g c

om

pl

ian

ce

Bo

ok

le

tS

CH

OO

L

CR

ITE

RIA

1C

OM

PE

TIT

ION

CL

AS

S

Fo

r cl

ari

fica

tio

n o

n in

div

idu

al r

eg

ula

tio

ns,

refe

r to

th

e 2

02

0 A

ust

ralia

n T

ech

nic

al R

eg

ula

tio

ns.

Re

gu

lati

on

Re

gu

lati

on

Ove

rvie

wM

in/M

ax

Qu

ick

Gu

ide

Pe

na

lty

Pa

ss/F

ail

Jud

ge

1Ju

dg

e 2

Re

ma

rks

Re

ctifi

cati

on

AR

TIC

LE

T2

– G

EN

ER

AL

PR

INC

IPL

ES

Pa

ss/F

ail

T2

.4S

afe

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Vis

ua

l Ch

eck

-20

T2

.9.1

De

sig

ne

d a

nd

en

gin

ee

red

usi

ng

CA

D /

CA

MC

he

ck P

ort

folio

-20

T2

.9.2

Pro

pe

ller

cove

rV

isu

al C

he

ck-2

0

T2

.10

No

n-w

ate

r so

lub

le s

urf

ace

fin

ish

/ f

ully

dry

Vis

ua

l Ch

eck

-20

T2

.11.

1R

EA

Co

rpo

rate

Pa

rtn

er

Logo

s: R

EA

, Do

D, S

iS, V

is. C

on

ne

ct.

Vis

ua

l Ch

eck

-2 e

a

T2

.11.

2R

EA

Co

rpo

rate

Pa

rtn

er

logo

s m

inim

um

dim

en

sio

ns

(>2

0%

larg

er)

Min

90

mm

x 5

0m

m-2

ea

T2

.1.3

RE

A C

orp

ora

te P

art

ne

r lo

go p

osi

tio

nin

g in

sid

e v

iew

Vis

ua

l Ch

eck

-2 e

a

T2

.11.

4D

eca

l In

teg

rity

Vis

ua

l Ch

eck

-2 e

a

T2

.12

Po

we

r S

ou

rce

12

vV

isu

al C

he

ckN

/A

T2

.13

Sta

tus

du

rin

g t

ria

ls –

no

ite

ms

rem

ove

d/r

ep

lace

d/

ad

de

dV

isu

al C

he

ck-2

AR

TIC

LE

T5

– B

OD

Y R

EG

UL

AT

ION

SP

ass

/Fa

il

T3

.1B

od

y co

nst

ruct

ion

– r

igid

ext

ern

al c

om

po

ne

nts

V

isu

al C

he

ck-4

T3

.2V

irtu

al C

arg

o20

0m

m x

20

0m

m x

100

mm

-4

T3

.3V

irtu

al C

arg

o id

en

tifi

ed

in e

ng

ine

eri

ng

dra

win

gs

Ch

eck

Dra

win

gs

-2

Poi

nts

Pen

alty

Pag

e To

tal

Tim

e P

enal

ty

Pag

e To

tal

Pos

t Rec

tifica

tion

Tim

e

Pen

alty

Pag

e To

tal

LE

GE

ND

E

ligib

ility

Re

gu

lati

on

s/P

oss

ible

Dis

qu

alifi

cati

on

Cri

tica

l Re

gu

lati

on

s/T

ime

Pe

na

lty

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s4

6

C14

�9

Crit

eria

1 -

Spec

ifica

tions

Com

plia

nce

Scor

e C

ard

(Lev

el 4

: Sub

mar

ine

Cla

ss) (

1 of

2)

JUD

GIN

G S

UB

CA

TE

GO

RY

Sp

ec

ific

at

ion

ST

EA

M ID

PR

IMA

RY

EV

IDE

NC

ES

uB

ma

Rin

eT

EA

M N

AM

E

SE

CO

ND

AR

Y E

VID

EN

CE

en

gin

ee

Rin

g c

om

pl

ian

ce

Bo

ok

le

tS

CH

OO

L

CR

ITE

RIA

1C

OM

PE

TIT

ION

CL

AS

S

Fo

r cl

ari

fica

tio

n o

n in

div

idu

al r

eg

ula

tio

ns,

refe

r to

th

e 2

02

0A

ust

ralia

n T

ech

nic

al R

eg

ula

tio

ns.

Re

gu

lati

on

Re

gu

lati

on

Ove

rvie

wM

in/M

ax

Qu

ick

Gu

ide

Pe

na

lty

Pa

ss/F

ail

Jud

ge

1Ju

dg

e 2

Re

ma

rks

Re

ctifi

cati

on

AR

TIC

LE

T3

– G

EN

ER

AL

PR

INC

IPL

ES

Pa

ss/F

ail

T2

.4S

afe

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Vis

ua

l Ch

eck

-20

T2

.9.1

De

sig

ne

d a

nd

en

gin

ee

red

usi

ng

CA

D /

CA

MC

he

ck P

ort

folio

-20

T2

.9.2

Pro

pe

ller

cove

rV

isu

al C

he

ck-2

0

T2

.10

No

n-w

ate

r so

lub

le s

urf

ace

fin

ish

/ f

ully

dry

Vis

ua

l Ch

eck

N/A

T2

.11.

1R

EA

Co

rpo

rate

Pa

rtn

er

Logo

s: R

EA

, Do

D, S

iS, V

is. C

on

ne

ct.

Vis

ua

l Ch

eck

-2 e

a

T2

.11.

2R

EA

Co

rpo

rate

Pa

rtn

er

logo

s m

inim

um

dim

en

sio

ns

(>2

0%

larg

er)

Min

90

mm

x 5

0m

m-2

ea

T2

.11.

3R

EA

Co

rpo

rate

Pa

rtn

er

logo

po

siti

on

ing

in s

ide

vie

wV

isu

al C

he

ck-2

ea

T2

.11.

4D

eca

l In

teg

rity

Vis

ua

l Ch

eck

-2 e

a

T2

.12

Un

de

fin

ed

fea

ture

sC

he

ck T

2.1

-2 e

a

AR

TIC

LE

T5

– G

EN

ER

AL

RE

GU

LA

TIO

NS

Pa

ss/F

ail

T3

.1O

vera

ll le

ng

th

Ma

x 10

00

mm

-4

T3

.2O

vera

ll w

idth

Ma

x 3

00

mm

-4

T3

.3O

vera

ll h

eig

ht

Ma

x 3

00

mm

-4

T3

.4S

tatu

s d

uri

ng

tri

als

– n

o it

em

s re

mo

ved

/re

pla

ced

/ad

de

dV

isu

al C

he

ck-2

T3

.6B

od

y C

on

stru

ctio

nV

isu

al C

he

ck-4

T3

.7V

irtu

al C

arg

o8

0m

m ø

x 5

00

mm

L-4

T3

.8V

irtu

al C

arg

o id

en

tifi

ed

in e

ng

ine

eri

ng

dra

win

gs

Ch

eck

Dra

win

gs

-2

Poi

nts

Pen

alty

Pag

e To

tal

Tim

e P

enal

ty

Pag

e To

tal

Pos

t Rec

tifica

tion

Tim

e

Pen

alty

Pag

e To

tal

LE

GE

ND

E

ligib

ility

Re

gu

lati

on

s/P

oss

ible

Dis

qu

alifi

cati

on

Cri

tica

l Re

gu

lati

on

s/T

ime

Pe

na

lty

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s4

7

C14

�10

Crit

eria

1 -

Spec

ifica

tions

Com

plia

nce

Scor

e C

ard

(Lev

el 4

: Sub

mar

ine

Cla

ss) (

2 of

2)

Re

gu

lati

on

Re

gu

lati

on

Ove

rvie

wM

in/M

ax

Qu

ick

Gu

ide

Pe

na

lty

Pa

ss/F

ail

Jud

ge

1Ju

dg

e 2

Re

ma

rks

Re

ctifi

cati

on

AR

TIC

LE

T4

– F

OR

E A

ND

AF

T C

AP

SP

ass

/Fa

il

T4

.1C

ap

s m

ad

e o

f p

ure

ly r

igid

co

mp

on

en

tsV

isu

al C

he

ck-4

T4

.2C

ap

s m

ust

no

t e

nte

r m

ain

bo

dy

(exc

ep

t co

nn

ect

ion

s)V

isu

al C

he

ck-2

AR

TIC

LE

T5

– C

ON

TR

OL

SU

RFA

CE

SP

ass

/Fa

il

T5

.1C

on

tro

l Su

rfa

ces

ide

nti

fie

d in

dra

win

gs

Ch

eck

Dra

win

gs

-2

T5

.2F

ore

co

ntr

ol s

urf

ace

s fo

rwa

rd o

f b

od

y.V

isu

al C

he

ck-2

T5

.3A

ft c

on

tro

l su

rfa

ces

rea

r o

f b

od

yV

isu

al C

he

ck-2

T5

.4C

on

tro

l su

rfa

ces

rem

ain

rig

idV

isu

al C

he

ck-2

AR

TIC

LE

T6

– F

IN/S

AIL

Pa

ss/F

ail

T6

.1F

in/s

ail

po

siti

on

ing

(w

ith

in b

ou

nd

ari

es

of

bo

dy)

V

isu

al C

he

ck-2

T6

.2F

in/s

ail

min

imu

m le

ng

thM

in 1

00

mm

-4

T6

.3F

in/s

ail

min

imu

m h

eig

ht

Min

50

mm

-4

T6

.4F

in/s

ail

min

imu

m w

idth

Min

30

mm

-2

Poi

nts

Pen

alty

Pag

e To

tal

Tim

e P

enal

ty

Pag

e To

tal

Pos

t Rec

tifica

tion

Tim

e

Pen

alty

Pag

e To

tal

Poi

nts

Pen

alty

Gra

nd T

otal

Tim

e P

enal

ty

Gra

nd T

otal

Pos

t Rec

tifica

tion

Tim

e

Pen

alty

Gra

nd T

otal

LE

GE

ND

E

ligib

ility

Re

gu

lati

on

s/P

oss

ible

Dis

qu

alifi

cati

on

Cri

tica

l Re

gu

lati

on

s/T

ime

Pe

na

lty

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s4

8

C14

�11

Crit

eria

2 -

Com

pute

r Aid

ed D

esig

n Sc

ore

Car

d (L

evel

3: S

patia

l Des

ign

Cla

ss)

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yC

ompu

ter

Aid

ed D

esig

nTe

am ID

Prim

ary

Evid

ence

VR W

alk

Thro

ugh

Dem

onst

rati

onTe

am N

ame

Seco

ndar

y Ev

iden

ceEn

gine

erin

g C

ompl

ianc

e B

ookl

etSc

hool

Cri

teri

a2

Com

peti

tion

Cla

ss

Low

Dev

elop

ing

Adv

ance

dSc

ore

Cri

teri

a0

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

/10

2.1

Desig

n inte

ntStu

dents

were

able

to ex

plain

at a b

asic

level

their d

esign

inten

t and

the e

lemen

ts wh

ich m

ade u

p the

ir des

ign

Stud

ents

show

ed an

unde

rstan

ding o

f the

desig

n elem

ents

and h

ow th

ey fit

ted

togeth

er w

ithin

their d

esign

offer

ing

Sign

ifican

t res

earch

supp

orted

the d

esign

inten

t, the

role

of the

dif

feren

t elem

ents

withi

n the

desig

n and

how

these

elem

ents

worke

d tog

ether

/1

0

2.2

Mode

l deta

ilMo

del is

basic

in de

sign a

nd

deve

lopme

ntMo

del s

hows

sign

ifican

t deta

il in t

he

eleme

nts w

hich m

ake u

p the

mod

elGr

eat a

ttenti

on to

detai

l has

been

mad

e inc

luding

the u

se of

ma

terial

s and

finish

es to

mak

e the

mod

el ap

pear

reali

stic

/10

2.3

Expla

natio

n of m

odel

layou

t

The s

tuden

ts we

re ab

le to

highli

ght

the ba

sics o

f their

mod

el an

d exp

lain

how

each

of th

e elem

ents

fitted

wi

thin t

he ov

erall

desig

n of th

eir

mode

l.

Stud

ents

were

able

to ea

sily m

ove a

bout

their

mode

l disp

laying

an un

derst

andin

g of th

e lay

out a

nd th

e way

each

of th

e elem

ents

fitted

tog

ether

to cre

ate a

cohe

sive e

nviro

nmen

t for

huma

n hab

itatio

n

Stud

ents

show

ed a

high l

evel

of un

derst

andin

g of th

eir m

odel

and

the ro

le of

huma

n erg

onom

ics pl

ayed

in th

e dev

elopm

ent o

f their

de

sign.

Tools

such

as hu

man m

anne

quins

wer

e use

d with

in the

ir mo

del to

help

expla

in the

envir

onme

nt

/10

2.4

Unde

rstan

ding o

f hum

an

ergo

nomi

cs

Basic

unde

rstan

ding o

f the i

mpac

t of

huma

n erg

onom

ics an

d hab

itatio

n ha

d with

in the

ir env

ironm

ent w

as

visibl

e

Stud

ents

show

ed a

high l

evel

of un

derst

andin

g of th

e imp

ortan

ce of

huma

n erg

onom

ics an

d sho

wed a

leve

l of re

searc

h int

o crea

ting h

uman

envir

onme

nts

A hig

h lev

el of

unde

rstan

ding o

f hum

an er

gono

mics

and

habit

ation

was

show

with

exam

ples o

f how

the v

irtual

3D m

odel

helpe

d the

desig

n pro

cess

and p

ropa

gated

desig

n cha

nges

/10

2.5

Use o

f hum

an

mann

equin

s to h

ighlig

ht de

sign i

ntent

Little

use o

f hum

an m

anne

quins

or

simila

r tools

to hi

ghlig

ht the

think

ing

behin

d the

layo

ut of

their e

nviro

nmen

t

Deve

loping

unde

rstan

ding o

f how

the u

se

of hu

man m

anne

quins

can b

e use

d to

deve

lop th

eir de

sign c

once

pts an

d des

igns

High

leve

l of u

nder

stand

ing of

the u

se of

huma

n man

nequ

ins to

dis

play h

ow th

e env

ironm

ent w

ould

oper

ate an

d how

all e

lemen

ts of

the m

odel

met th

e des

ign in

tent

/10

2.6

Engin

eerin

g Dra

wing

/sLit

tle or

no de

tail. L

ittle o

r no

anno

tation

.Th

ird an

gle or

thogr

aphic

proje

ction

. Ex

cess

ive or

insu

fficien

t deta

il.

Third

angle

ortho

graph

ic pro

jectio

n and

unren

dered

isom

etric

view

or

simila

r. Part

s list

/ bill o

f mate

rials.

Addit

ional

views

to sh

ow su

fficen

t de

tail. R

egula

tion c

ompli

ance

show

n./1

0

2.7

Rend

ering

Poor

quali

tyDi

ffere

nt vie

ws. S

ome i

ncon

sisten

cies w

ith

final

spac

ial de

sign.

Diffe

rent v

iews.

Perec

t matc

h to fi

nal d

esign

inclu

ding b

randin

g, en

viron

ment

and l

ightin

g. Hi

gh en

d pho

torea

listic

rend

ering

tec

hniqu

e./1

0

Com

pute

r Aid

ed D

esig

n G

RA

ND

TO

TAL

/70

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s4

9

C14

�12

Crit

eria

2 -

Com

pute

r Aid

ed D

esig

n Sc

ore

Car

d (L

evel

2: R

OV

& L

evel

4: S

ubm

arin

e C

lass

)

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yC

ompu

ter

Aid

ed D

esig

nTe

am ID

Prim

ary

Evid

ence

Team

Inte

rvie

wTe

am N

ame

Seco

ndar

y Ev

iden

ce•

Mod

elli

ng o

n Te

am C

ompu

ter

• En

gine

erin

g C

ompl

ianc

e B

ookl

etSc

hool

Cri

teri

a2

Com

peti

tion

Cla

ss

Lo

wD

ev

eLo

pin

gA

Dv

An

ce

DS

co

re

Cri

teri

a0

10

1 2

2 3

3 4

5 6

4 5

7 8

9 10

/5 /10

2.1

App

licat

ion

of C

AD

Basi

c un

ders

tand

ing

and

appl

icat

ion

of C

ADG

ood

unde

rsta

ndin

g an

d ap

plic

atio

n of

CAD

Adva

nced

und

erst

andi

ng a

nd a

pplic

atio

n of

CAD

thro

ugho

ut.

/10

2.2

CA

D O

rgan

isat

ion

Gen

eral

ly d

isor

gani

sed

Satis

fact

ory

orga

nisa

tion

of d

ata

and

mod

els

Dat

a &

parts

hig

hly

orde

red

& lin

ked.

Ful

l CAD

pro

duct

as

sem

bly

/10

2.3

CA

D B

ased

Ana

lysi

sM

inim

al a

naly

sis

show

nG

ood

anal

ysis

. Res

ults

app

lied

to

deve

lopm

ent

Varie

ty o

f adv

ance

d an

d re

leva

nt a

naly

sis

tech

niqu

es

cond

ucte

d/1

02.

4 O

vera

ll C

AD

Tec

hnic

al

Mer

itBa

sic

CAD

des

ign

with

littl

e te

chni

cal m

erit

Dev

elop

ed C

AD d

esig

n w

ith s

ome

tech

nica

l mer

it O

rigin

al &

cle

ver d

evel

oped

CAD

des

ign

with

exc

elle

nt

tech

nica

l mer

it/5

2.5

CA

D M

odel

vs

Fini

shed

Pr

oduc

tBa

sic

Sim

ilarit

yG

ood

Sim

ilarit

yEx

celle

nt S

imila

rity

/10

2.6

Engi

neer

ing

Dra

win

g/s

(Eng

inee

ring

Com

plia

nce

Boo

klet

)

Littl

e or

no

deta

il. L

ittle

or n

o an

nota

tion.

Third

ang

le o

rthog

raph

ic

proj

ectio

n. E

xces

sive

or i

nsuffi

cien

t de

tail.

Third

ang

le o

rthog

raph

ic p

roje

ctio

n an

d un

rend

ered

isom

etric

vi

ew o

r sim

ilar.

Parts

list

/ bi

ll of

mat

eria

ls. A

dditi

onal

vie

ws

to

show

suffi

cent

det

ail.

Reg

ulat

ion

com

plia

nce

show

n./1

0

2.7

Ren

derin

gPo

or q

ualit

yD

iffer

ent v

iew

s. S

ome

inco

nsis

tenc

ies

with

fina

l wat

er

craf

t.

Diff

eren

t vie

ws.

Per

ect m

atch

to fi

nal w

ater

craf

t inc

ludi

ng

bran

ding

. Env

ironm

ent a

nd li

ghtin

g. H

igh

end

phot

orea

listic

re

nder

ing

tech

niqu

e./1

0

Co

mp

ute

r A

ide

d D

esi

gn

GR

AN

D T

OTA

L/6

5

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s5

0

C14

�13

Crit

eria

3 -

Engi

neer

ing:

Man

ufac

turin

g Sc

ore

Car

d (L

evel

2: R

OV

& L

evel

4: S

ubm

arin

e C

lass

)

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yM

anuf

actu

ring

Team

ID

Prim

ary

Evid

ence

Team

Inte

rvie

wTe

am N

ame

Seco

ndar

y Ev

iden

ceTe

am E

ngin

eeri

ng P

ortf

olio

Scho

olC

rite

ria

3C

ompe

titi

on C

lass

Low

Dev

elop

ing

Adv

ance

dSc

ore

Cri

teri

a0

10

1 2

2 3

3 4

5 6

4 5

7 8

9 10

/5 /10

3.1

App

licat

ion

of C

AM

/ C

NC

Min

imal

evi

denc

e of

CN

C

unde

rsta

ndin

gEff

ectiv

e us

e an

d un

ders

tand

ing

of

CN

C m

achi

ning

pro

cess

es u

sed

Hig

h le

vel o

f CN

C m

achi

ning

com

pete

nce.

Ap

prop

riate

ly c

ompl

ex te

chni

ques

and

pro

cess

es u

sed

to a

chie

ve m

anuf

actu

ring

goal

/10

3.2

Man

ufac

turin

g pr

oces

s ca

ps a

nd s

ail

Littl

e m

anuf

actu

ring

deta

ilsM

anuf

actu

ring

proc

esse

s an

d so

me

issu

es p

rese

nted

Det

aile

d as

sess

men

t of a

ll m

anuf

actu

ring,

sta

ges,

m

ater

ials

& is

sues

/10

3.3

Man

ufac

turin

g pr

oces

s in

tern

al c

ompo

nent

sLi

ttle

man

ufac

turin

g de

tails

Man

ufac

turin

g pr

oces

ses

and

som

e is

sues

pre

sent

edD

etai

led

asse

ssm

ent o

f all

man

ufac

turin

g, s

tage

s,

mat

eria

ls &

issu

es/1

03.

4 To

lera

ncin

g / Q

ualit

y C

ontr

olLi

ttle

cons

ider

atio

n of

tole

ranc

ing

and

qual

ity c

ontro

lG

ood

cons

ider

atio

n of

tole

ranc

ing

and

qual

ity c

ontro

lEx

celle

nt c

onsi

dera

tion

of to

lera

ncin

g an

d qu

ality

co

ntro

l/1

03.

5 O

vera

ll M

anuf

actu

ring

Tech

nica

l Mer

itBa

sic

man

ufac

turin

g w

ith li

ttle

tech

nica

l mer

it G

ood

man

ufac

turin

g w

ith te

chni

cal

mer

it O

rigin

al &

cle

ver m

anuf

actu

ring

proc

esse

s w

ith

exce

llent

tech

nica

l mer

it/5

3.6

Qua

lity

of F

inis

hed

Prod

uct -

Geo

met

ry/

Form

Rea

sona

ble

form

with

som

e in

cons

iste

ncie

sG

ood

over

all f

orm

and

ass

embl

y w

ith

atte

ntio

n to

det

ail

Exce

ptio

nal a

ttent

ion

to d

etai

l acr

oss

all a

spec

ts o

f fo

rm/1

0

3.7

Qua

lity

of F

inis

hed

Prod

uct -

Sur

face

fini

shR

easo

nabl

e fin

ish

with

som

e in

cons

iste

ncie

sG

ood

over

all fi

nish

qua

lity

with

at

tent

ion

to d

etai

lSh

owca

se fi

nish

qua

lity.

Exc

eptio

nal a

ttent

ion

to d

etai

l/1

0

Ma

nu

fact

uri

ng

GR

AN

D T

OTA

L/6

5

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s5

1

C14

�14

Crit

eria

4 -

Engi

neer

ing:

Des

ign

Proc

ess

Scor

e C

ard

(Lev

el 3

: Spa

tial D

esig

n C

lass

)

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yEn

gine

erin

g D

esig

n Pr

oces

sTe

am ID

Prim

ary

Evid

ence

Team

Eng

inee

ring

Por

tfol

ioTe

am N

ame

Seco

ndar

y Ev

iden

ceSc

hool

Cri

teri

a4

Com

peti

tion

Cla

ss

Low

Dev

elop

ing

Adv

ance

dSc

ore

Cri

teri

a0

1 2

0 1

2 3

4 5

3 4

5 6

6 7

8 9

10 1

1 12

7 8

9 10

13 1

4 15

16

17 1

8 19

20

/10

/20

4.1

Des

ign

Spec

ifica

tion

Lim

ited

deve

lopm

ent o

f a

spec

ifica

tion

desc

ribin

g th

e sp

atia

l env

ironm

ent

A w

ell-d

evel

oped

des

crip

tion

of th

e sp

atia

l env

ironm

ent,

suffi

cien

t to

desc

ribe

the

elem

ents

con

tain

ed in

th

e sp

atia

l des

ign

prop

osal

An e

xcel

lent

and

det

aile

d de

scrip

tion

of th

e sp

atia

l env

ironm

ent

and

desi

gn o

fferin

g in

clud

ing

its k

ey a

dvan

tage

s ov

er a

ltern

ativ

es/1

0

4.2

Idea

sSi

ngle

or b

asic

con

cept

sM

ultip

le c

once

pts

with

link

s to

re

sear

ch.

Seve

ral t

echn

ical

ly in

spire

d id

eas

for d

iffer

ent f

eatu

res/

func

tions

/10

4.3

Dev

elop

men

tLi

mite

d de

velo

pmen

t sh

own

Logi

cal d

esig

n de

velo

pmen

ts

expl

aine

dC

lear

ly ju

stifi

ed d

evel

opm

ents

bas

ed a

roun

d re

sear

ch o

n is

sues

of

hum

an fa

ctor

s/2

0

4.4

Ana

lysi

sLi

ttle

evid

ence

of a

naly

sis

Anal

ysis

whi

ch is

rele

vant

and

re

sults

doc

umen

ted

Qua

lity

anal

ysis

met

hodo

logi

es. A

ccur

ate

resu

lts a

nd d

ata

linke

d to

des

ign

revi

sion

s. A

dvan

ced

use

of d

esig

n to

ols

/10

4.5

Eval

uatio

nN

o or

lim

ited

eval

uatio

nEv

alua

tions

at d

iffer

ent s

tage

s ha

ve li

mite

d co

nsid

erat

ion

of

hum

an fa

ctor

s

Exce

llent

ong

oing

eva

luat

ions

link

ed w

ith c

onsi

dera

tion

of h

uman

fa

ctor

s/2

0

4.6

Ove

rall

Des

ign

Tech

nica

l M

erit

Basi

c de

sign

pro

cess

with

lit

tle te

chni

cal m

erit

Dev

elop

ed d

esig

n pr

oces

s w

ith

som

e te

chni

cal m

erit

Orig

inal

& c

leve

r dev

elop

ed d

esig

n pr

oces

s w

ith e

xcel

lent

te

chni

cal m

erit

/10

Engi

neer

ing

Des

ign

Proc

ess

GR

AN

D T

OTA

L/8

0

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s5

2

C14

�15

Crit

eria

4 -

Engi

neer

ing:

Des

ign

Proc

ess

Scor

e C

ard

(Lev

el 2

: RO

V &

Lev

el 4

: Sub

mar

ine

Cla

ss)

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yEn

gine

erin

g D

esig

n Pr

oces

sTe

am ID

Prim

ary

Evid

ence

Team

Eng

inee

ring

Por

tfol

ioTe

am N

ame

Seco

ndar

y Ev

iden

ceSc

hool

Cri

teri

a4

Com

peti

tion

Cla

ss

Low

Dev

elop

ing

Adv

ance

dSc

ore

Cri

teri

a0

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

/10

4.1

Req

uire

men

ts A

naly

sis

Lim

ited

deve

lopm

ent o

f ob

ject

ives

Goo

d de

velo

pmen

t of o

bjec

tives

Exce

llent

sta

tem

ent o

f obj

ectiv

es s

uppo

rted

by re

sear

ch/1

0

4.2

Idea

sSi

ngle

or b

asic

con

cept

sM

ultip

le c

once

pts

with

link

s to

re

sear

ch.

Seve

ral t

echn

ical

ly in

spire

d id

eas

for d

iffer

ent f

eatu

res/

func

tions

/10

4.3

Dev

elop

men

tLi

mite

d de

velo

pmen

t sho

wn

Logi

cal d

esig

n de

velo

pmen

ts

expl

aine

dC

lear

ly ju

stifi

ed d

evel

opm

ents

bas

ed a

roun

d re

sear

ch o

n is

sues

of

hum

an h

abita

tion

/10

4.4

Ana

lysi

sLi

ttle

evid

ence

of a

naly

sis

Anal

ysis

whi

ch is

rele

vant

and

re

sults

doc

umen

ted

Qua

lity

anal

ysis

met

hodo

logi

es. A

ccur

ate

resu

lts a

nd d

ata

linke

d to

des

ign

revi

sion

s. A

dvan

ced

use

of C

FD a

nd o

ther

des

ign

tool

s/1

0

4.5

Phys

ical

Tes

ting

Littl

e ev

iden

ce o

f tes

ting

Test

s w

hich

are

rele

vant

with

re

sults

doc

umen

ted

Qua

lity

expe

rimen

tal m

etho

dolo

gies

. Acc

urat

e re

sults

link

ed to

de

sign

revi

sion

s/1

0

4.6

Eval

uatio

nN

o or

lim

ited

eval

uatio

nEv

alua

tions

at d

iffer

ent s

tage

sEx

celle

nt o

ngoi

ng e

valu

atio

ns li

nked

with

con

side

ratio

n of

hum

an

ergo

nom

ics

/10

4.7

Ove

rall

Des

ign

Tech

nica

l M

erit

Basi

c de

sign

pro

cess

with

lit

tle te

chni

cal m

erit

Dev

elop

ed d

esig

n pr

oces

s w

ith

som

e te

chni

cal m

erit

Orig

inal

& c

leve

r dev

elop

ed d

esig

n pr

oces

s w

ith e

xcel

lent

te

chni

cal m

erit

/10

Engi

neer

ing

Des

ign

Proc

ess

GR

AN

D T

OTA

L/7

0

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s5

3

C14

�16

Crit

eria

5 -

Port

folio

: Pro

ject

Man

agem

ent S

core

Car

d (A

ll C

lass

es)

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yp

Ro

jec

t m

an

ag

em

en

t &

lin

kin

g S

kil

lS t

o f

ut

uR

e c

aR

ee

RS

Team

IDPr

imar

y Ev

iden

cet

ea

m e

nt

eR

pR

iSe

po

Rt

fo

lio

Team

Nam

eSe

cond

ary

Evid

ence

Scho

olC

rite

ria

5C

ompe

titi

on C

lass

Low

Dev

elop

ing

Adv

ance

dSc

ore

Cri

teri

a0

1 2

0 1

2 3

4 5

3 4

5 6

6 7

8 9

10 1

1 12

7 8

9 10

13 1

4 15

16

17 1

8 19

20

/10

/20

5.1

Team

Rol

es &

Tas

ksLi

mite

d un

ders

tand

ing

of ro

les

and

resp

onsi

bilit

ies

Team

role

s an

d re

spon

sibi

litie

s id

entifi

ed

Hig

hly

stru

ctur

ed te

am w

ith c

lear

role

s an

d re

spon

sibi

litie

s. A

ll te

am

mem

bers

pro

vide

crit

ical

con

tribu

tions

with

evi

denc

e of

sup

porti

ve/

over

lapp

ing

inte

ract

ions

. R

elev

ant s

kill

deve

lopm

ent/

men

torin

g un

derta

ken.

Pla

n C

hang

es d

iscu

ssed

/10

5.2

Scop

e Li

mite

d un

ders

tand

ing

of s

cope

Som

e at

tem

pts

at s

cope

de

com

posi

tion

Exce

llent

con

trol o

f all

proj

ect d

eliv

erab

les

unde

rsta

ndin

g re

quire

men

ts a

nd s

ettin

g go

als

to m

aint

ain

focu

s Pl

an C

hang

es

disc

usse

d/1

0

5.3

Tim

e M

anag

emen

tLi

mite

d ev

iden

ce o

f tim

e m

anag

emen

t

Som

e pl

anni

ng u

sed

to g

uide

pr

ogre

ss o

f pro

ject

goa

ls a

nd s

tay

on

task

.

Exte

nsiv

e ev

iden

ce o

f usi

ng e

ffect

ive

man

agem

ent m

etho

ds a

nd

tool

s to

sta

y on

task

and

mee

t dea

dlin

es.

/10

5.4

Fina

nce

Lim

ited

budg

etin

g aw

aren

ess

Som

e re

sour

ces

iden

tified

, bud

getin

g an

d pr

ojec

t con

tinge

ncy

cons

ider

ed.

Exce

llent

reso

urce

man

agem

ent,

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

bud

get c

ontro

l an

d ev

iden

ce o

f fina

ncia

l acc

ount

ing

met

hods

incl

udin

g tra

ckin

g of

ac

tual

spe

nd a

gain

st b

udge

t./1

0

5.5

Ris

k M

anag

emen

tLi

mite

d ris

k aw

aren

ess

Som

e co

ntin

genc

y pl

ans

in p

lace

.R

easo

nabl

e co

ntin

genc

y pl

an a

nd ri

sk a

sses

smen

t pre

pare

d an

d/or

un

derta

ken.

/10

5.6

Inte

rnal

Com

mun

icat

ion

Lim

ited

team

co

mm

unic

atio

nBa

sic

team

com

mun

icat

ion

proc

esse

s di

scus

sed

Exce

llent

use

of m

ultip

le c

omm

unic

atio

n to

ols

and

met

hods

for

effec

tive

team

pla

nnin

g an

d ac

coun

tabi

lity

/10

5.7

Stak

ehol

der

Enga

gem

ent

Lim

ited

stak

ehol

der

enga

gem

ent

Basi

c un

ders

tand

ing

and

appl

icat

ion

of s

take

hold

er e

ngag

emen

t

Exce

llent

und

erst

andi

ng a

nd a

pplic

atio

n of

initi

atin

g an

d m

aint

aini

ng

stak

ehol

der e

ngag

emen

t with

col

labo

rato

rs, s

pons

ors,

men

tors

and

su

ppor

ters

usi

ng m

ultip

le to

ols

and

met

hods

/10

5.8

Skill

Dev

elop

men

t for

Fu

ture

Car

eers

1

No

or li

ttle

effor

t to

iden

tify

skills

and

lin

k th

em to

Def

ence

In

dust

ry c

aree

rs

A go

od e

ffort

by th

e te

am to

iden

tify

indi

vidu

al s

kills

dev

elop

ed b

ut m

ore

wor

k ne

eded

to li

nk th

ese

with

D

efen

ce In

dust

ry c

aree

rs

Dem

onst

rabl

e ev

iden

ce in

por

tfolio

by

team

to id

entif

y an

d re

cord

se

vera

l ind

ustry

spe

cific

and

em

ploy

abilit

y sk

ills d

evel

oped

thro

ugh

thei

r par

ticip

atio

n in

Sub

s in

Sch

ools

and

how

thes

e ca

n lin

k to

ca

reer

s w

ithin

Def

ence

Indu

strie

s

/20

5.9

Eval

uatio

nLi

mite

d ev

alua

tion

Som

e ev

alua

tion

appl

ied

Eval

uatio

n pr

oces

ses

appl

ied

thro

ugho

ut th

e m

anag

emen

t of k

ey

deliv

erab

les

/10

Port

folio

Pro

ject

Man

agem

ent G

RA

ND

TO

TAL

/100

1 Th

is cri

terion

NOT

inclu

ded i

n calc

ulatio

n of B

est M

anag

ed E

nterp

rise A

ward

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s5

4

C14

�17

Crit

eria

6 -

Port

folio

: Por

tfolio

Des

ign

Scor

e C

ard

(All

Cla

sses

)

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yC

lari

ty &

Qua

lity

Team

IDPr

imar

y Ev

iden

ceTe

am E

ngin

eeri

ng &

Ent

erpr

ise

Port

foli

oTe

am N

ame

Seco

ndar

y Ev

iden

ceSc

hool

Cri

teri

a6

Com

peti

tion

Cla

ss

Low

Dev

elop

ing

Adv

ance

dSc

ore

Cri

teri

a0

1 2

34

5/5

6.1

Prod

uctio

n Q

ualit

y of

M

ater

ials

Poor

qua

lity

Basi

c pr

intin

g an

d bi

ndin

gQ

ualit

y pr

inte

d do

cum

ent o

n qu

ality

pap

er in

app

ropr

iate

ly d

urab

le

bind

ing

/5

6.2

Prod

uctio

n Q

ualit

y of

C

onte

ntM

issi

ng d

ocum

enta

tion

Basi

c do

cum

enta

tion

prov

ided

Cor

rect

num

ber o

f pag

es. A

ll re

quire

d do

cum

enta

tion

incl

uded

and

pr

ofes

sion

ally

pre

sent

ed. S

ub re

nder

ing

and

team

logo

on

cove

r pag

e in

ke

epin

g w

ith b

rand

ing

/5

6.3

Con

tent

Org

anis

atio

nD

isor

gani

sed

cont

ent

Som

e co

nten

t org

anis

atio

nH

ighl

y or

gani

sed

and

man

aged

por

tfolio

con

tent

with

logi

cal s

truct

ure

and

flow

of i

nfor

mat

ion

/5

6.4

Layo

ut D

esig

nD

istra

ctin

g im

perfe

ctio

ns

wea

ken

the

wor

kSo

me

layo

ut d

esig

n fo

rmat

at

tem

pted

Wel

l for

mat

ted

layo

ut d

esig

n co

nsis

tent

ly a

pply

ing

mar

gins

, alig

nmen

t, sp

acin

g, g

raph

ics

and

desi

gn e

lem

ents

with

con

side

ratio

n of

vis

ual

bala

nce

and

flow.

All

page

s op

timal

ly u

sed

and

uncl

utte

red.

Cre

ativ

e st

yle

real

ised

/5

6.5

Typo

grap

hyFo

nt c

hoic

es a

re

dist

ract

ing

or w

eake

n th

e w

ork

Som

e co

nsid

erat

ion

for t

ype

treat

men

t

Con

sist

ent u

se o

f typ

ogra

phy

with

app

ropr

iate

cho

ices

and

lim

ited

num

ber o

f tex

t and

hea

dlin

e fo

nt s

izes

, sty

les,

col

ours

and

hie

rarc

hy. I

n ke

epin

g w

ith b

rand

ing.

Eas

y to

read

/5

6.6

Phot

os &

Imag

esPo

or q

ualit

y or

use

of

imag

es. N

o ca

ptio

ning

Basi

c qu

ality

and

use

of

imag

es. S

ome

reas

onab

ly

conc

ise

capt

ioni

ng

Just

ified

use

of e

xcel

lent

, un-

pixe

llate

d, c

lear

, und

isto

rted

phot

os a

nd

imag

es th

at a

re c

onci

sely

and

acc

urat

ely

capt

ione

d. P

rope

rly s

ized

, co

lour

ed a

nd in

tegr

ated

with

text

to il

lust

rate

key

mes

sage

s. C

onsi

ders

br

andi

ng

/5

6.7

Cre

ativ

e G

raph

ics

(Vis

ual e

ffect

s an

d in

fogr

aphi

cs)

Poor

gra

phic

s an

d/or

ex

ecut

ion.

No

capt

ioni

ng

Gra

phic

s at

tem

pted

with

som

e su

cces

s. S

ome

reas

onab

ly

conc

ise

capt

ioni

ng

Just

ified

, wel

l exe

cute

d an

d pl

aced

, un-

pixe

llate

d, u

ndis

torte

d gr

aphi

cs

that

are

con

cise

ly a

nd a

ccur

atel

y ca

ptio

ned.

Con

sist

ent u

se o

f col

our/

tone

s/ s

hape

s, w

ithou

t vis

ual o

verlo

ad, i

n ke

epin

g w

ith b

rand

ing

/5

6.8

Editi

ng/P

roof

read

ing

Erro

r rid

den.

Poo

r atte

mpt

at

pro

ofre

adin

gG

ood

atte

mpt

with

add

ition

al

editi

ng re

quire

d fo

r cla

rity

No

erro

rs d

etec

ted

in te

xt a

nd g

raph

ics

/5

6.9

Ref

eren

cing

Obv

ious

failu

res

in

refe

renc

ing

Som

e at

tem

pt a

t ref

eren

cing

. So

me

erro

rs e

vide

ntEx

celle

nt u

se o

f ref

eren

cing

for a

utho

r’s w

ritte

n w

ord,

gra

phic

s/ph

otos

an

d vi

deo

sour

ces

etc

/5

6.10

W

ritin

g &

Rea

dabi

lity

Diffi

cult

to u

nder

stan

d.

Una

ble

to re

adD

oes

not s

usta

in re

adin

g or

in

tere

st. D

oes

not ‘

flow

’C

onci

se, a

ppro

pria

te, g

ram

mat

ical

ly c

orre

ct te

xt, c

aptio

ns, a

nd

head

lines

. Inv

iting

and

eng

agin

g. S

usta

ins

the

read

er’s

inte

rest

/5

Port

folio

Cla

rity

& Q

ualit

y G

RA

ND

TO

TAL

/50

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s5

5

C14

�17

Crit

eria

6 -

Port

folio

: Por

tfolio

Des

ign

Scor

e C

ard

(All

Cla

sses

)

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yC

lari

ty &

Qua

lity

Team

IDPr

imar

y Ev

iden

ceTe

am E

ngin

eeri

ng &

Ent

erpr

ise

Port

foli

oTe

am N

ame

Seco

ndar

y Ev

iden

ceSc

hool

Cri

teri

a6

Com

peti

tion

Cla

ss

Low

Dev

elop

ing

Adv

ance

dSc

ore

Cri

teri

a0

1 2

34

5/5

6.1

Prod

uctio

n Q

ualit

y of

M

ater

ials

Poor

qua

lity

Basi

c pr

intin

g an

d bi

ndin

gQ

ualit

y pr

inte

d do

cum

ent o

n qu

ality

pap

er in

app

ropr

iate

ly d

urab

le

bind

ing

/5

6.2

Prod

uctio

n Q

ualit

y of

C

onte

ntM

issi

ng d

ocum

enta

tion

Basi

c do

cum

enta

tion

prov

ided

Cor

rect

num

ber o

f pag

es. A

ll re

quire

d do

cum

enta

tion

incl

uded

and

pr

ofes

sion

ally

pre

sent

ed. S

ub re

nder

ing

and

team

logo

on

cove

r pag

e in

ke

epin

g w

ith b

rand

ing

/5

6.3

Con

tent

Org

anis

atio

nD

isor

gani

sed

cont

ent

Som

e co

nten

t org

anis

atio

nH

ighl

y or

gani

sed

and

man

aged

por

tfolio

con

tent

with

logi

cal s

truct

ure

and

flow

of i

nfor

mat

ion

/5

6.4

Layo

ut D

esig

nD

istra

ctin

g im

perfe

ctio

ns

wea

ken

the

wor

kSo

me

layo

ut d

esig

n fo

rmat

at

tem

pted

Wel

l for

mat

ted

layo

ut d

esig

n co

nsis

tent

ly a

pply

ing

mar

gins

, alig

nmen

t, sp

acin

g, g

raph

ics

and

desi

gn e

lem

ents

with

con

side

ratio

n of

vis

ual

bala

nce

and

flow.

All

page

s op

timal

ly u

sed

and

uncl

utte

red.

Cre

ativ

e st

yle

real

ised

/5

6.5

Typo

grap

hyFo

nt c

hoic

es a

re

dist

ract

ing

or w

eake

n th

e w

ork

Som

e co

nsid

erat

ion

for t

ype

treat

men

t

Con

sist

ent u

se o

f typ

ogra

phy

with

app

ropr

iate

cho

ices

and

lim

ited

num

ber o

f tex

t and

hea

dlin

e fo

nt s

izes

, sty

les,

col

ours

and

hie

rarc

hy. I

n ke

epin

g w

ith b

rand

ing.

Eas

y to

read

/5

6.6

Phot

os &

Imag

esPo

or q

ualit

y or

use

of

imag

es. N

o ca

ptio

ning

Basi

c qu

ality

and

use

of

imag

es. S

ome

reas

onab

ly

conc

ise

capt

ioni

ng

Just

ified

use

of e

xcel

lent

, un-

pixe

llate

d, c

lear

, und

isto

rted

phot

os a

nd

imag

es th

at a

re c

onci

sely

and

acc

urat

ely

capt

ione

d. P

rope

rly s

ized

, co

lour

ed a

nd in

tegr

ated

with

text

to il

lust

rate

key

mes

sage

s. C

onsi

ders

br

andi

ng

/5

6.7

Cre

ativ

e G

raph

ics

(Vis

ual e

ffect

s an

d in

fogr

aphi

cs)

Poor

gra

phic

s an

d/or

ex

ecut

ion.

No

capt

ioni

ng

Gra

phic

s at

tem

pted

with

som

e su

cces

s. S

ome

reas

onab

ly

conc

ise

capt

ioni

ng

Just

ified

, wel

l exe

cute

d an

d pl

aced

, un-

pixe

llate

d, u

ndis

torte

d gr

aphi

cs

that

are

con

cise

ly a

nd a

ccur

atel

y ca

ptio

ned.

Con

sist

ent u

se o

f col

our/

tone

s/ s

hape

s, w

ithou

t vis

ual o

verlo

ad, i

n ke

epin

g w

ith b

rand

ing

/5

6.8

Editi

ng/P

roof

read

ing

Erro

r rid

den.

Poo

r atte

mpt

at

pro

ofre

adin

gG

ood

atte

mpt

with

add

ition

al

editi

ng re

quire

d fo

r cla

rity

No

erro

rs d

etec

ted

in te

xt a

nd g

raph

ics

/5

6.9

Ref

eren

cing

Obv

ious

failu

res

in

refe

renc

ing

Som

e at

tem

pt a

t ref

eren

cing

. So

me

erro

rs e

vide

ntEx

celle

nt u

se o

f ref

eren

cing

for a

utho

r’s w

ritte

n w

ord,

gra

phic

s/ph

otos

an

d vi

deo

sour

ces

etc

/5

6.10

W

ritin

g &

Rea

dabi

lity

Diffi

cult

to u

nder

stan

d.

Una

ble

to re

adD

oes

not s

usta

in re

adin

g or

in

tere

st. D

oes

not ‘

flow

’C

onci

se, a

ppro

pria

te, g

ram

mat

ical

ly c

orre

ct te

xt, c

aptio

ns, a

nd

head

lines

. Inv

iting

and

eng

agin

g. S

usta

ins

the

read

er’s

inte

rest

/5

Port

folio

Cla

rity

& Q

ualit

y G

RA

ND

TO

TAL

/50

C14

�18

Crit

eria

7 -

Mar

ketin

g: B

rand

ing

Scor

e C

ard

(All

Cla

sses

)

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yB

Ra

nd

ing

Team

IDPr

imar

y Ev

iden

cet

ea

m in

te

RV

iew

at

tR

ad

e d

iSp

la

yTe

am N

ame

Seco

ndar

y Ev

iden

cet

ea

m e

nt

eR

pR

iSe

po

Rt

fo

lio

Scho

olC

rite

ria

7C

ompe

titi

on C

lass

Low

Dev

elop

ing

Adv

ance

dSc

ore

Cri

teri

a0

10

1 2

2 3

3 4

5 6

4 5

7 8

9 10

/5 /10

7.1

Team

Nam

e1 Irre

levan

t cho

iceLim

ited c

onsid

eratio

n of m

eanin

gWe

ll con

sidere

d, mea

ningfu

l team

name

appro

priate t

o goa

ls and

imag

e proje

ction

/5

7.2

Logo

Dev

elopm

ent¹

Limite

d ide

as &

deve

lopme

nt. N

o ori

ginal

work

evide

nt

Some

logo

idea

prog

ressio

n & cr

eativ

e log

o mod

ificati

on of

type

or gr

aphic

s no

ted

A num

ber o

f logo

idea

s con

sidere

d with

atten

tion t

o tea

m go

als an

d ide

ntity.

Crea

tive &

origi

nal lo

go

deve

lopme

nt cle

arly r

elates

to th

e tea

m’s c

hose

n nam

e, ide

ntity

and p

urpos

e/5

7.3

Fina

l Log

o De

sign¹

Team

logo

is ab

sent

or co

nfusin

gLo

go m

essa

ge is

simp

le an

d obv

ious

Stron

g tea

m log

o tha

t grab

s atte

ntion

, gen

erates

a po

sitive

resp

onse

, and

is ea

sily re

cogn

ised

and r

ecall

ed. W

ell co

nside

red us

e of c

olours

, type

and s

hape

s enh

ance

mea

ning.

In ke

eping

with

bra

nding

/5

7.4

Logo

App

licat

ion

Poor

quali

ty rep

roduc

tion,

limite

d tea

m log

o bad

ging

Most

items

are b

adge

d with

team

logo

. Te

am lo

go qu

ality

dimini

shed

whe

n en

large

d or re

duce

d acro

ss ap

plica

tions

.

Team

logo

scale

s well

to la

rge an

d sma

ll bad

ging a

pplica

tions

. All a

pplica

tions

are o

f high

quali

ty an

d ap

propri

ately

posit

ioned

for s

trong

impa

ct/5

7.5

Team

Bra

ndin

gBr

andin

g mes

sage

is w

eak w

ith

incon

sisten

t app

licatio

n acro

ss

the pr

oject

Effec

tive t

eam

brand

ing co

nsist

ently

ap

plied

acros

s proj

ect c

ompo

nents

Exce

llent

and h

ighly

effec

tive m

essa

ging o

f team

imag

e. Qu

ality

and c

onsis

tent b

randin

g of te

am

name

, logo

, typo

graph

y, & c

olours

appli

ed ac

ross a

ll proj

ect e

lemen

ts: po

rtfolio

, unif

orms,

car, d

isplay

, so

cial m

edia

and c

ollate

ral. Ic

on, ta

gline

or m

asco

t add

ed to

stren

gthen

bran

ding

/10

7.6

Medi

a Exp

osur

eLim

ited o

r ineff

ectiv

eSo

me de

velop

ment,

some

impa

ct, so

me

cons

iderat

ion of

audie

nce a

nd pl

atform

s

Clear,

deve

loped

, high

impa

ct me

dia st

rateg

y, inc

luding

socia

l med

ia. C

areful

cons

iderat

ion of

targe

t au

dienc

e and

suita

ble pl

atform

s. Ev

idenc

e of a

ttemp

t to w

ork w

ith m

edia

broad

caste

rs/pu

blish

ers

with s

ome d

ocum

ented

succ

ess

/5

7.7

Team

Spo

nsor

s & R

EA

Corp

orat

e Par

tner

s ROI

Little

or no

ROI

Spon

sorsh

ip ac

know

ledge

d. So

me lo

gos

includ

ed in

proje

ct co

llater

alCle

ar an

d app

ropria

te vis

ibility

of te

am sp

onso

rs an

d REA

Corp

orate

Partn

ers. Q

uality

repro

ducti

on of

ap

propri

ate sp

onso

r and

REA

Corp

orate

Partn

er log

os ac

ross a

ll proj

ect c

ollate

ral as

requ

ired

/10

7.8

Team

Uni

form

Ineffe

ctive

or in

cons

isten

t, sam

e or

simila

r to su

pport

ersBa

sic an

d con

sisten

t acro

ss th

e tea

m,

distin

ct fro

m su

pport

ersCr

eative

and c

onsid

ered u

se of

bran

ding a

nd ap

propri

ate sty

ling fo

r all m

embe

rs. Te

am m

embe

r nam

es an

d rol

es cle

arly id

entifie

d. Cle

arly d

istinc

t from

supp

orters

/5

7.9

Team

Pre

senc

eNo

t all p

resen

t / Po

or en

ergy

Gene

rally

enthu

siasti

cAll

team

mem

bers

are ap

propri

ately e

ngag

ing an

d enth

usias

tic ab

out th

eir wo

rk/5

7.10

Te

am K

nowl

edge

Limite

d eng

agem

ent

Some

mem

bers

know

ledge

able

Each

mem

ber is

high

ly kn

owled

geab

le in

their r

ole an

d also

broa

dly kn

owled

geab

le ab

out d

etails

of the

ir entr

y. Able

to de

fer to

othe

rs wit

h con

fiden

ce an

d sha

re pro

ject o

wners

hip/5

Bra

ndin

g G

RA

ND

TO

TAL

/60

1 Ju

dged

from

a tea

m’s E

nterp

rise P

ortfo

lio

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s5

6

C14

�19

Crit

eria

8 -

Mar

ketin

g: T

rade

Dis

play

Sco

re C

ard

(Lev

el 3

: Spa

tial D

esig

n C

lass

)

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yTr

ade

Dis

play

Team

IDPr

imar

y Ev

iden

ceTr

ade

Dis

play

Team

Nam

eSe

cond

ary

Evid

ence

Team

Inte

rvie

w, E

nter

pris

e Po

rtfo

lio

& D

esig

n B

rief

Scho

olC

rite

ria

8C

ompe

titi

on C

lass

Low

Dev

elop

ing

Adv

ance

dSc

ore

Cri

teri

a0

1 2

0 1

2 3

3 4

5 6

4 5

6 7

8 9

7 8

9 10

10

11 1

213

14 1

5/1

0/1

5

8.1

Trad

e D

ispl

ay

Des

ign

Dev

elop

men

t

Sing

le or

basic

conc

epts

and l

imite

d de

velop

ment

show

n.

Multip

le co

ncep

ts wi

th lin

ks

to re

sear

ch. L

ogica

l des

ign

deve

lopme

nts ex

plaine

d.

Seve

ral in

spire

d ide

as fo

r diffe

rent b

ooth

featur

es/fu

nctio

ns. C

learly

justi

fied d

evelo

pmen

ts ba

sed

aroun

d res

earch

and T

rade D

isplay

comp

etitio

n req

uirem

ents.

3D C

AD us

ed to

desig

n and

org

anise

booth

elem

ents

effec

tively

to m

axim

ise us

e of s

pace

and p

rovide

and r

ealis

tic gr

aphic

al rep

resen

tation

of th

e fina

l disp

lay.

/15

8.2

Prod

uct

Dis

play

Little

cons

iderat

ion gi

ven t

o pres

entat

ion

of the

desig

n spa

ceSo

me at

tempt

to dis

play t

he de

sign

spac

e as a

key f

eatur

eEx

celle

nt de

sign m

ateria

ls an

d meth

ods u

sed t

o effe

ctive

ly dis

play t

he de

sign s

pace

and i

ts ke

y co

mpon

ents

to ma

ke it

a fea

ture o

f the d

isplay

/10

8.3

Info

rmat

ion

Des

ign

Limite

d or r

epea

t of fo

lioPr

oject

mess

age i

s exp

ande

d be

yond

folio

Clea

n, we

ll-org

anise

d lay

out o

f writt

en an

d gra

phica

l infor

matio

n with

shar

p pro

fessio

nal

appe

al. C

onclu

sive s

naps

hot o

f team

’s ke

y mes

sage

s. Un

clutte

red,

enga

ging,

and e

asy t

o rea

d. Co

nsist

ent b

rand

ing st

yle/1

0

8.4

Use

of I

CTs

Limite

d ICT

sIC

Ts us

ed to

enha

nce p

resen

tation

Exce

llent

integ

ration

of m

ultim

edia

techn

ologie

s and

inter

activ

e ICT

s to d

emon

strate

, eng

age a

nd in

form

/10

8.5

Visu

al D

esig

n &

Impa

ct

Limite

d or lo

w im

pact

creati

vity,

bran

ding,

mess

aging

and r

ecog

nition

of

spon

sors.

Some

relev

ant c

reativ

e mes

sagin

g ev

ident

with

cons

iderat

ion fo

r a ra

nge

of fac

tors

Crea

tive d

esign

whic

h is a

ttracti

ve an

d imp

actfu

l. Exc

ellen

t repre

senta

tion o

f the t

eam

name

, bran

d and

bra

nd co

lours.

Team

mes

sage

and/o

r slog

an is

clea

rly ev

ident

and s

pons

ors ar

e app

ropria

tely r

ecog

nised

. Inn

ovati

ve el

emen

ts ad

d inte

rest a

nd su

pport

team

mes

sagin

g./1

0

8.6

Stru

ctur

al

Des

ign1

No or

limite

d des

ign de

velop

ment

evide

nt, no

r con

sidera

tion f

or co

nstra

ining

facto

rs.

Some

good

evide

nce o

f des

ign

deve

lopme

nt an

d con

sider

ation

for

cons

traini

ng fa

ctors.

Crea

tive a

nd ju

stifie

d stru

ctural

desig

n with

exce

llent

use o

f spa

ce fo

r prim

ary di

splay

comp

onen

ts.

Evide

nce o

f des

ign de

velop

ment

cons

iderin

g fun

ction

ality

at ev

ents,

bran

ding a

nd te

am m

essa

ging,

mater

ials,

budg

et, su

staina

bility

, tran

sport

and a

ssem

bly co

nstra

ints.

/15

8.7

Mat

eria

ls

Sele

ctio

n &

U

se

No or

limite

d res

earch

into

mater

ials

with

cons

traini

ng fa

ctors

in mi

nd. S

ome

proble

ms ar

e evid

ent.

Gene

rally

effec

tive a

nd re

levan

t ch

oice o

f mate

rials

cons

iderin

g som

e fac

tors

High

ly eff

ectiv

e cho

ice of

mate

rials.

Evid

ence

of de

velop

ment

cons

iderin

g fac

tors i

nclud

ing ap

peara

nce,

budg

et, su

staina

bility,

trans

port a

nd as

semb

ly co

nstra

ints.

Team

unde

rstan

ds pr

opert

ies of

mate

rials

used

an

d is a

ble to

justi

fy the

ir cho

ices,

achie

ving a

n exc

ellen

t finis

h with

evide

nt att

entio

n to d

etail.

/15

8.8

Sust

aina

bilit

yNo

or lim

ited e

viden

ce of

susta

inabil

ity

factor

s tak

en in

to co

nside

ration

.So

me ev

idenc

e of s

ustai

nabil

ity

cons

iderat

ions b

y tea

m.St

rong d

emon

strate

d evid

ence

of te

am re

using

or re

cycli

ng pr

oject

comp

onen

ts wi

th co

nside

ration

for

the en

viron

ment

where

poss

ible.

/10

8.9

Pack

agin

g R

estr

ictio

ns2

Team

comp

lies w

ith AL

L pac

kagin

g res

trictio

ns as

per C

8.4 of

the A

ustra

lian C

ompe

tition

Reg

ulatio

ns (0

or 50

)/5

0

Trad

e B

ooth

GR

AN

D T

OTA

L –

Dev

elop

men

t Cla

ss/1

30Tr

ade

Boo

th G

RA

ND

TO

TAL

– Pr

ofes

sion

al C

lass

/145

1 Th

is cri

terion

NOT

appli

cable

to th

e Dev

elopm

ent C

lass a

t Stat

e Fina

ls2

This

criter

ion m

arke

d by t

he C

hair o

f Jud

ges p

rior t

o star

t of b

ooth

setup

& re

sults

enter

ed on

line.

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s5

7

C14

�20

Crit

eria

8 -

Mar

ketin

g: T

rade

Dis

play

Sco

re C

ard

(Lev

el 2

: RO

V &

Lev

el 4

: Sub

mar

ine

Cla

ss)

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yt

Ra

de

diS

pl

ay

Team

IDPr

imar

y Ev

iden

cet

Ra

de

diS

pl

ay

Team

Nam

eSe

cond

ary

Evid

ence

te

am

int

eR

Vie

w, e

nt

eR

pR

iSe

po

Rt

fo

lio

& d

eS

ign

BR

ief

Scho

olC

rite

ria

8C

ompe

titi

on C

lass

Low

Dev

elop

ing

Adv

ance

dSc

ore

Cri

teri

a0

1 2

0 1

2 3

3 4

5 6

4 5

6 7

8 9

7 8

9 10

10 1

1 12

13

14 1

5/1

0/1

5

8.1

Trad

e D

ispl

ay

Des

ign

Dev

elop

men

t

Sing

le o

r bas

ic c

once

pts

and

limite

d de

velo

pmen

t sho

wn.

Mul

tiple

con

cept

s w

ith li

nks

to re

sear

ch. L

ogic

al d

esig

n de

velo

pmen

ts e

xpla

ined

.

Seve

ral i

nspi

red

idea

s fo

r diff

eren

t boo

th fe

atur

es/fu

nctio

ns. C

lear

ly ju

stifi

ed d

evel

opm

ents

ba

sed

arou

nd re

sear

ch a

nd T

rade

Dis

play

com

petit

ion

requ

irem

ents

. 3D

CAD

use

d to

des

ign

and

orga

nise

boo

th e

lem

ents

effe

ctiv

ely

to m

axim

ise

use

of s

pace

and

pro

vide

and

real

istic

gr

aphi

cal r

epre

sent

atio

n of

the

final

dis

play

./1

5

8.2

Wat

er C

raft

Dis

play

Littl

e co

nsid

erat

ion

give

n to

pr

esen

tatio

n of

the

wat

er c

raft

Som

e at

tem

pt to

dis

play

the

wat

er c

raft

as a

key

feat

ure

Exce

llent

des

ign

mat

eria

ls a

nd m

etho

ds u

sed

to e

ffect

ivel

y di

spla

y th

e w

ater

cra

ft an

d its

ke

y co

mpo

nent

s to

mak

e it

a fe

atur

e of

the

disp

lay

/5

8.3

Info

rmat

ion

Des

ign

Lim

ited

or re

peat

of f

olio

Proj

ect m

essa

ge is

exp

ande

d be

yond

folio

Cle

an, w

ell-o

rgan

ised

layo

ut o

f writ

ten

and

grap

hica

l inf

orm

atio

n w

ith s

harp

pro

fess

iona

l ap

peal

. C

oncl

usiv

e sn

apsh

ot o

f tea

m’s

key

mes

sage

s. U

nclu

ttere

d, e

ngag

ing,

and

eas

y to

read

. Con

sist

ent b

rand

ing

styl

e/1

0

8.4

Use

of I

CTs

Lim

ited

ICTs

ICTs

use

d to

enh

ance

pre

sent

atio

nEx

celle

nt in

tegr

atio

n of

mul

timed

ia te

chno

logi

es a

nd in

tera

ctive

ICTs

to d

emon

stra

te, e

ngag

e an

d in

form

/10

8.5

Visu

al D

esig

n &

Im

pact

Lim

ited

or lo

w im

pact

cre

ativ

ity,

bran

ding

, mes

sagi

ng a

nd

reco

gniti

on o

f spo

nsor

s.

Som

e re

leva

nt c

reat

ive m

essa

ging

ev

iden

t with

con

sider

atio

n fo

r a

rang

e of

fact

ors

Crea

tive

desig

n wh

ich is

attr

activ

e an

d im

pact

ful.

Exce

llent

repr

esen

tatio

n of

the

team

nam

e,

bran

d an

d br

and

colo

urs.

Tea

m m

essa

ge a

nd/o

r slo

gan

is cle

arly

evid

ent a

nd s

pons

ors

are

appr

opria

tely

reco

gnise

d. In

nova

tive

elem

ents

add

inte

rest

and

sup

port

team

mes

sagi

ng.

/10

8.6

Stru

ctur

al

Des

ign1

No

or li

mite

d de

sign

dev

elop

men

t ev

iden

t, no

r con

side

ratio

n fo

r co

nstra

inin

g fa

ctor

s.

Som

e go

od e

vide

nce

of d

esig

n de

velo

pmen

t and

con

side

ratio

n fo

r con

stra

inin

g fa

ctor

s.

Crea

tive

and

just

ified

stru

ctur

al d

esig

n wi

th e

xcel

lent

use

of s

pace

for p

rimar

y di

spla

y co

mpo

nent

s. E

viden

ce o

f des

ign

deve

lopm

ent c

onsid

erin

g fu

nctio

nality

at e

vent

s, b

rand

ing

and

team

mes

sagi

ng, m

ater

ials,

bud

get,

sust

aina

bility

, tra

nspo

rt an

d as

sem

bly

cons

train

ts.

/15

8.7

Mat

eria

ls

Sele

ctio

n &

Use

No o

r lim

ited

rese

arch

into

mat

eria

ls wi

th c

onst

rain

ing

fact

ors

in m

ind.

Som

e pr

oble

ms

are

evid

ent.

Gen

eral

ly e

ffect

ive

and

rele

vant

ch

oice

of m

ater

ials

con

side

ring

som

e fa

ctor

s

High

ly eff

ectiv

e ch

oice

of m

ater

ials.

Evid

ence

of d

evel

opm

ent c

onsid

erin

g fa

ctor

s in

cludi

ng

appe

aran

ce, b

udge

t, su

stai

nabi

lity, t

rans

port

and

asse

mbl

y co

nstra

ints

. Tea

m u

nder

stan

ds

prop

ertie

s of

mat

eria

ls us

ed a

nd is

abl

e to

just

ify th

eir c

hoice

s, a

chie

ving

an e

xcel

lent

fini

sh w

ith

evid

ent a

ttent

ion

to d

etai

l./1

5

8.8

Sust

aina

bilit

yNo

or l

imite

d ev

iden

ce o

f sus

tain

abilit

y fa

ctor

s ta

ken

into

con

sider

atio

n.So

me

evid

ence

of s

usta

inab

ility

cons

ider

atio

ns b

y te

am.

Stro

ng d

emon

stra

ted

evid

ence

of t

eam

reus

ing

or re

cycl

ing

proj

ect c

ompo

nent

s w

ith

cons

ider

atio

n fo

r the

env

ironm

ent w

here

pos

sibl

e./1

08.

9 Pa

ckag

ing

Res

tric

tions

2 Te

am c

ompl

ies

with

ALL

pac

kagi

ng re

stric

tions

as

per C

8.4

of th

e Au

stra

lian

Com

petit

ion

Reg

ulat

ions

(0 o

r 50)

/50

Trad

e B

ooth

GR

AN

D T

OTA

L –

Dev

elop

men

t Cla

ss/1

30Tr

ade

Boo

th G

RA

ND

TO

TAL

– Pr

ofes

sion

al C

lass

/145

1 Th

is cri

terion

NOT

appli

cable

to th

e Dev

elopm

ent C

lass a

t Stat

e Fina

ls2

This

criter

ion m

arke

d by t

he C

hair o

f Jud

ges p

rior t

o star

t of b

ooth

setup

& re

sults

enter

ed on

line.

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s5

8

C14

�21

Crit

eria

9 -

Pres

enta

tion:

Tec

hniq

ue S

core

Car

d (A

ll C

lass

es)

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yTe

chni

que

Team

IDPr

imar

y Ev

iden

ceTe

am P

rese

ntat

ion

Team

Nam

eSe

cond

ary

Evid

ence

Scho

olC

rite

ria

9C

ompe

titi

on C

lass

Low

Dev

elop

ing

Adv

ance

dSc

ore

Cri

teri

a0

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

/10

9.1

Pres

enta

tion

ener

gyAr

tifici

al a

nd/o

r low

ene

rgy

Spea

kers

gen

eral

ly e

nthu

sias

tic w

ith

livel

y de

liver

yPa

ssio

nate

with

effe

ctiv

e an

d ap

prop

riate

leve

ls o

f liv

elin

ess

/10

9.2

Team

Con

trib

utio

nM

inim

al te

am p

artic

ipat

ion

Goo

d co

ntrib

utio

ns fr

om m

ost t

eam

m

embe

rsEx

celle

nt te

am w

ork

with

all

mem

bers

par

ticip

atin

g eff

ectiv

ely

/10

9.3

Visu

al A

ids

Littl

e us

e of

aid

sSo

me

aids

use

d eff

ectiv

ely

Wel

l pro

duce

d, h

ighl

y re

leva

nt a

nd in

tegr

ated

aid

s eff

ectiv

ely

impr

ove

com

mun

icat

ion

/10

9.4

Aud

ienc

e En

gage

men

tM

inim

al e

ngag

emen

tSo

me

audi

ence

con

nect

ion

at ti

mes

Audi

ence

fully

eng

aged

and

exc

ited

thro

ugho

ut p

rese

ntat

ion

/10

9.5

Art

icul

atio

nD

ifficu

lt to

und

erst

and

and/

or

hear

mos

t pre

sent

ers

Inco

nsis

tent

spe

akin

g ab

ility

Exce

llent

arti

cula

tion,

use

of l

angu

age

and

voic

e pr

ojec

tion

by a

ll m

embe

rs th

roug

hout

the

asse

ssm

ent

/10

9.6

Stru

ctur

eN

o st

ruct

ure

pres

ente

d,

diffi

cult

to fo

llow

A ba

sic

stru

ctur

e / o

utlin

e pr

ovid

ed a

nd

coul

d be

follo

wed

by

audi

ence

Cle

ar p

rese

ntat

ion

outli

ne /

over

view

. Exc

elle

nt c

onne

ctio

ns

betw

een

topi

cs a

nd e

asy

for a

udie

nce

to fo

llow

/10

9.7

Use

of T

ime

Too

fast

or r

an o

ut o

f tim

eG

ood

timin

g. B

alan

ced

topi

c de

pth

and

pace

Ran

on

time

or ju

st u

nder

. Exc

elle

nt b

alan

ce o

f dep

th fo

r ea

ch to

pic

/10

Pre

sent

atio

n Te

chni

que

GR

AN

D T

OTA

L/7

0

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s5

9

C14

�22

Crit

eria

10

- Pre

sent

atio

n: C

onte

nt S

core

Car

d (A

ll C

lass

es)

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yc

on

te

nt

Team

IDPr

imar

y Ev

iden

cet

ea

m p

Re

Se

nt

at

ion

Team

Nam

eSe

cond

ary

Evid

ence

Scho

olC

rite

ria

10C

ompe

titi

on C

lass

Low

Dev

elop

ing

Adv

ance

dSc

ore

Cri

teri

a0

10

1 2

30

1 2

3 4

5

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

6 7

8 9

10 1

1 12

4 5

10

11 1

2 13

14

1513

14

15 1

6 17

18

19 2

0

/5 /15

/20

10.1

Te

am o

bjec

tives

Lim

ited

stat

emen

t of o

bjec

tives

Goo

d st

atem

ent o

f obj

ectiv

esEx

celle

nt s

tate

men

t of o

bjec

tives

sup

porte

d by

sou

nd

reas

onin

g/5

10.2

D

escr

iptio

n of

Wat

er

Cra

ft / D

esig

n Sp

ace1

Basi

c de

scrip

tion

of w

ater

cra

ft / d

esig

n sp

ace

only

Goo

d de

scrip

tion

of w

ater

cra

ft / d

esig

n sp

ace

com

pone

nts

and

feat

ures

Exce

llent

des

crip

tion

of w

ater

cra

ft / d

esig

n sp

ace

com

pone

nts

and

feat

ures

incl

udin

g de

sign

dec

isio

ns/5

10.3

In

nova

tion

Littl

e in

nova

tion

pres

ente

dIn

nova

tions

des

crib

ed a

nd ju

stifi

edO

rigin

ality

. Cle

ver i

nnov

atio

ns w

ith h

igh

posi

tive

proj

ect

impa

ct/1

510

.4

Refi

nem

ent

Littl

e re

finem

ent p

rese

nted

Refi

nem

ent d

escr

ibed

and

just

ified

Cle

ver r

efine

men

t with

hig

h po

sitiv

e pr

ojec

t im

pact

/15

10.5

C

olla

bora

tion

Littl

e co

llabo

ratio

n di

scus

sed

Link

s w

ith in

dust

ry o

r hig

her e

duca

tion

desc

ribed

Col

labo

ratio

ns ju

stifi

ed w

ith li

nks

to le

arni

ng a

nd p

roje

ct

outc

omes

/20

10.6

Le

arni

ng o

utco

mes

No

real

refle

ctio

ns d

iscu

ssed

Goo

d ex

plan

atio

n of

som

e le

arni

ng

outc

omes

A ra

nge

of p

erso

nal,

life-

long

lear

ning

and

car

eer s

kills

ac

quire

d an

d id

entifi

ed a

s pr

ojec

t out

com

es fo

r a ra

nge

of

team

mem

bers

/15

10.7

Fu

ture

Car

eer

Asp

iratio

ns &

R

esea

rch

Littl

e or

no

thou

ght h

ad

been

giv

en to

futu

re c

aree

r as

pira

tions

.

Evid

ence

of s

ome

team

mem

bers

re

sear

chin

g ca

reer

s ge

nera

lly b

ut n

o lin

kage

to o

ppor

tuni

ties

in D

efen

ce

Indu

strie

s

It is

evi

dent

that

team

mem

bers

had

thou

ghtfu

lly c

onsi

dere

d th

eir f

utur

e ca

reer

asp

iratio

ns a

nd u

nder

take

n re

sear

ch in

to

how

thes

e m

ight

be

linke

d w

ith o

ppor

tuni

ties

bein

g off

ered

in

Def

ence

Indu

strie

s/1

5

10.8

O

vera

ll cl

arity

Seve

ral c

once

pts

lack

ed

clar

ifica

tion

Cle

ar a

nd a

ppro

pria

te c

once

pt

expl

anat

ions

Ever

ythi

ng p

rese

nted

was

und

erst

ood

thro

ugh

exce

llent

ex

plan

atio

ns/5

Pre

sen

tati

on

Co

nte

nt

GR

AN

D T

OTA

L/9

5

1 De

sign S

pace

relev

ant to

Leve

l 3 S

patia

l Des

ign on

ly

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s6

0

C14

�23

Crit

eria

11

- Tria

ls: R

ov T

rial S

core

Car

d (L

evel

2: R

OV

Cla

ss)

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yLe

vel

2: R

OV

Cla

ssTe

am ID

Prim

ary

Evid

ence

Tria

lsTe

am N

ame

Seco

ndar

y Ev

iden

ceSc

hool

Cri

teri

a11

Com

peti

tion

Cla

ss

Flot

atio

n an

d W

ater

Col

umn

Posi

tion

ing

Tria

l (4

min

Max

)C

rite

ria

(Tic

k B

oxes

)Po

ints

Floa

t on

surfa

ce a

nd h

old

posi

tion

/5

Sit o

n bo

ttom

and

hol

d po

sitio

n/5

Hov

er a

t mid

dep

th a

nd h

old

posi

tion

/5

Ret

urn

to s

urfa

ce a

nd h

old

posi

tion

/5

Flo

tatio

n &

Wat

er C

olum

n Po

sitio

ning

Tria

l Sub

-Tot

al/2

0

Subm

erge

d M

anoe

uvri

ng T

rial

(4m

in M

ax)

Cri

teri

a (T

ick

Box

es)

Poin

tsM

ove

ahea

d/5

Mov

e as

tern

/5

Turn

to p

ort

/5

Turn

to s

tarb

oard

/5

Sub

mer

ged

Man

oeur

vrin

g Tr

ial S

ub-T

otal

/20

Ret

riev

al V

oyag

e Tr

ial

(8m

in M

ax)

Cri

teri

a (T

ick

Box

es)

Poin

tsVi

sual

con

firm

atio

n

/50

Obj

ects

Obj

ect 1

Obj

ect 2

Obj

ect 3

/30

Butto

n ac

tivat

ion

/20

Tria

l Tim

e:R

etrie

val V

oyag

e R

anki

ng P

oint

s/6

0R

etrie

val V

oyag

e Su

b To

tal

/160

Mem

ber P

ilot P

enal

ties

-G

RAN

D T

OTA

L/2

00

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s6

1

C14

�24

Crit

eria

11

- Tria

ls: S

ubs

Tria

l Sco

re C

ard

(Lev

el 4

: Sub

mar

ine

Cla

ss)

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yLe

vel

4: S

UB

S C

lass

Team

IDPr

imar

y Ev

iden

ceTr

ials

Team

Nam

eSe

cond

ary

Evid

ence

Scho

olC

rite

ria

11C

ompe

titi

on C

lass

Surf

ace

Man

oeuv

ring

Tri

al (4

min

Max

)C

rite

ria

(Tic

k B

oxes

)Po

ints

Mov

e ah

ead

/5

Mov

e as

tern

/5

Turn

to p

ort

/5

Turn

to s

tarb

oard

/5

Surfa

ce M

anoe

uvrin

g Tr

ial S

ub-T

otal

/20

Flot

atio

n an

d B

alla

stin

g Tr

ial

(4m

in M

ax)

Cri

teri

a (T

ick

Box

es)

Poin

tsFl

oat a

t lev

el tr

im a

nd m

inim

al h

eel i

ndefi

nite

ly/5

Balla

st to

mid

dep

th a

nd h

old

posi

tion

inde

finite

ly/5

Sit o

n bo

ttom

inde

finite

ly/5

Ret

urn

to s

urfa

ce w

ith le

vel t

rim a

nd m

inim

al h

eel

/5

Flot

atio

n an

d Ba

llast

ing

Tria

l Sub

-Tot

al/2

0

Subm

erge

d M

anou

vrin

g Tr

ial

(4m

in M

ax)

Cri

teri

a (T

ick

Box

es)

Poin

tsPo

rpoi

se (w

ith c

onst

ant s

low

ahe

ad s

peed

div

e, le

vel o

ut a

t mid

dep

th,

resu

rface

) - a

im to

dem

onst

rate

hyd

ropl

anes

./1

0

At m

id d

epth

, mov

e As

tern

/10

At m

id d

epth

, tur

n to

por

t/1

0

At m

id d

epth

, tur

n to

sta

rboa

rd/1

0

Subm

erge

d M

anoe

uvrin

g Tr

ial S

ub-T

otal

/40

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s6

2

Judg

ing

Sub

Cat

egor

yLe

vel

4: S

UB

S C

lass

Team

IDPr

imar

y Ev

iden

ceTr

ials

Team

Nam

eSe

cond

ary

Evid

ence

Scho

olC

rite

ria

11C

ompe

titi

on C

lass

Tim

ed W

ay P

oint

Voy

age

Tria

l (6

min

Max

)C

rite

ria

(Tic

k B

oxes

)Po

ints

Gat

e 1

Wat

er c

raft

entir

ely

subm

erge

d, p

asse

s th

roug

h ga

te u

prig

hts,

doe

s no

t m

ake

cont

act

/10

Gat

e 2

Wat

er c

raft

entir

ely

subm

erge

d, p

asse

s th

roug

h ga

te u

prig

hts,

doe

s no

t m

ake

cont

act

/10

Gat

e 3

Wat

er c

raft

entir

ely

subm

erge

d, p

asse

s th

roug

h ga

te u

prig

hts,

doe

s no

t m

ake

cont

act

/10

Gat

e 4

Wat

er c

raft

entir

ely

subm

erge

d, p

asse

s th

roug

h ga

te u

prig

hts,

doe

s no

t m

ake

cont

act

/10

Gat

e 5

Wat

er c

raft

entir

ely

subm

erge

d, p

asse

s th

roug

h ga

te u

prig

hts,

doe

s no

t m

ake

cont

act

/10

Gat

e 6

Wat

er c

raft

entir

ely

subm

erge

d, p

asse

s th

roug

h ga

te u

prig

hts,

doe

s no

t m

ake

cont

act

/10

Doc

king

- D

epar

ture

and

Arri

val

Wat

er c

raft

is fu

lly c

onta

ined

and

is s

tatio

nary

with

in d

ock

/10

Tria

l Tim

e:Ti

med

Way

Poi

nt V

oyag

e R

anki

ng P

oint

s/5

0Ti

med

Way

Poi

nt V

oyag

e Su

b To

tal

/120

Mem

ber P

ilot P

enal

ties

-G

RAN

D T

OTA

L/2

00

Ap

pen

dic

es

|

Art

icle

C14

20

20

Lev

els

2, 3

& 4

Co

mp

etit

ion

Re

gu

lati

on

s6

3


1300 204 478 www.rea.org.au

Competition Regulations · C2.10.2 New arrangements regarding Development Class portfolio page...

Documents

Transcript of Competition Regulations · C2.10.2 New arrangements regarding Development Class portfolio page...