Which ESA BASS proposal templates apply after the November 2025 change?

A company preparing an ESA business-applications proposal should not assume that the first template found through search is the applicable one. ESA's older document page remains accessible, but it explicitly limits its relevance by the date and programme under which the initial proposal was submitted.

The page says its documents apply to APQ proposals submitted before 25 November 2025 under ARTES. The current proof-of-concept and pilot guidance describes a staged process using an Activity Pitch Questionnaire, outline proposal and full proposal, with official tender documentation in esa-star. It states that the official tendering sources take precedence. Older document-page warning and current application process The choice between ESA BASS proof of concept and pilot projects similarly depends on the customer evidence the work needs to produce.

This creates a version-control problem for applicants who reuse successful material. A consultant may have an excellent proposal from an earlier round, while the current route asks different questions or uses different cost forms. Reusing the old structure without checking the live documents can turn prior experience into a source of error.

Start by recording the actual opportunity reference, programme route and stage. Then obtain the documents linked to that route through the official system. Keep their version and retrieval date with the working draft. The team should know which instructions govern the application before assigning writing tasks.

Separate reusable evidence from reusable formatting. Customer research, technical results and company information may remain valuable. The headings, declarations and budget structure may need to change. This distinction allows the team to benefit from previous work without assuming that the earlier submission rules still apply.

Check the dependencies between stages. An accepted early-stage submission may contain assumptions that need revision after feedback. The full proposal should reflect the current scope and required authorisation, rather than merely expanding the original text. Maintain a short record of changes so that reviewers inside the company can follow the development of the proposal.

A founder should also confirm which team member owns the final submission. Drafting in a shared document is different from completing the official forms and uploading the required material. Administrative responsibility should be clear while there is still time to resolve account or document issues.

Budget preparation deserves the same care as the narrative. A cost category or co-funding assumption from an older programme should not be imported automatically. The finance owner needs the applicable rules and an explanation of which company costs the activity includes. The GEODES booster cost review makes the cost of continuing an Earth-observation service visible after initial support.

If instructions appear inconsistent, raise the question through the authorised ESA channel and preserve the answer. Do not resolve a material conflict by choosing the version that makes the proposal easiest to submit. The ESA BASS co-funding and cash requirement comparison distinguishes an eligible-cost percentage from the company's full cash requirement.

Create a document register before revising the proposal

A template change creates two different risks. The obvious one is completing the wrong file. The less visible one is carrying an old assumption into a new document even after the filename has been updated. The proposal team should therefore record the source, version, retrieval date and intended use of each document, together with the activity and call reference it belongs to.

The current BASS document list separates proof-of-concept and pilot outline templates from the Growth Project documents. Its visible entries include APQ version 4.30 dated 9 June 2026 and outline templates version 1.1. A shared version number does not make two templates interchangeable: the activity and document purpose remain part of their identity.

The APQ PDF adds a practical issue. Its opening page warns that embedded form features may not display properly in alternative viewers. That means a browser preview is an incomplete basis for deciding which fields the application requires. The visible page also states a limit of two APQ submissions per tenderer per calendar year for that call. The complete applicable form and tender package should govern submission planning.

A document register can remain small. It needs the authoritative URL, the saved filename, the version or date printed on the document and the person responsible for checking it. A row for the outline template should not double as the record for the APQ, the funding conditions or the full proposal. Each document answers a different question in the application sequence.

Migrate evidence, not just paragraphs

Suppose a hypothetical company began writing a pilot proposal using an older folder of documents. It has a customer letter, a cost workbook, a service description and a draft development schedule. Downloading the current template is only the beginning of the repair. The team needs to determine which existing evidence still answers the current questions and which material belongs to a different stage.

The customer letter is a good example. It might express general interest without confirming the activity now described in the proposal. If the proposed pilot has changed from one user department to several, the letter may no longer support the expected participation. The right response is to resolve the evidence gap, rather than copy the old letter into a new attachment list and assume the formatting change has solved the problem.

The cost workbook needs similar attention. A changed work package can affect staff effort, partner contributions and the timing of expenditure. A narrative that describes one evaluation while the workbook finances another will be difficult to assess even if both documents use current templates. The team should reconcile the scope across the technical, commercial and financial material before polishing individual sections.

Keep a short change record as the proposal moves between stages. It should explain what changed, why it changed and which supporting document was updated. This is useful when an evaluator's comment requires a narrower customer segment or a different validation activity. A later reviewer can then see that the revision was deliberate and that the rest of the proposal has been brought into line.

Separate application timing from project timing

ESA's published application sequence describes successive APQ, outline and full-proposal stages, with feedback informing the next submission. It also identifies national written funding authorisation as a dependency of the full proposal. A company's internal calendar should distinguish these application dependencies from the delivery schedule of a project that has not yet been contracted.

For a small team, the scarce resource may be the person who can answer both technical and commercial questions. Reserving that person's time for a full proposal before the preceding stage is accepted can create avoidable pressure. Conversely, waiting until an invitation arrives before discussing partner availability can leave the team unable to prepare a coherent response. The useful compromise is to prepare reusable evidence early while delaying detailed work that depends on unresolved feedback.

Version control also protects institutional memory. If an application is paused, another colleague should be able to identify the last authoritative document set and the open questions without reconstructing months of email. The saved package should make clear which items were submitted, which remained drafts and whether a later public document changed the relevant conditions.

The commercial value of this discipline is reduced rework and a clearer decision about whether to continue. A current template cannot compensate for a weak customer case, but an inconsistent document set can prevent a strong case from being assessed properly. The objective is a proposal whose documents describe the same activity, the same responsibilities and the same stage of commitment.

The practical benefit of document control is fewer avoidable revisions and a more reliable internal approval. This article does not reproduce the complete tender conditions. It identifies a specific stale-document trap and a method for avoiding it: establish the route, verify the governing documents and adapt the evidence to the current process.