Recognition framework

Evaluation framework

Eligible entries are scored on the 100-point schedule for their category. Jurors assess only the contribution and evidence within the entry boundary. Size, contract value, publicity, and organizational profile are not substitutes for merit.

100-point framework

One calculation, five category scorecards

A juror assigns each criterion a raw score from 0 to 5. Its weighted contribution is calculated as (raw score / 5) x criterion points. The five weighted contributions add to a juror total between 0 and 100.

Raw score: 0 to 5, supported by a concise reason and the evidence relied upon.
Criterion contribution: Raw score divided by 5, then multiplied by the published criterion points.
Juror total: The sum of five criterion contributions; maximum 100 points.
Category result: The arithmetic mean of valid, non-conflicted juror totals after recorded moderation.
Missing evidence: No weight is redistributed. An applicable criterion without usable evidence scores 0.

Project scorecard

Marine Works Project Award

25 Technical achievement

25 Delivery and interface control

15 Safety and environmental responsibility

20 Accepted outcome

15 Transferable learning

Criterion details

Asset scorecard

Marine Asset Performance Award

30 Operational performance

25 Evidence quality and measurement

20 Maintainability and resilience

15 Environmental and user value

10 Transferable learning

Criterion details

Engineering scorecard

Specialist Marine Engineering Award

30 Technical contribution

25 Execution and interface control

20 Verification of result

10 Safety and environmental responsibility

15 Transferable learning

Criterion details

Resilience scorecard

Coastal and Waterfront Resilience Award

20 Hazard and consequence baseline

20 Technical response

30 Observed performance

15 Environmental and community value

15 Adaptation and learning

Criterion details

Knowledge scorecard

Marine Works Knowledge Award

25 Professional value

25 Method and data integrity

20 Originality

15 Application or independent adoption

15 Accessibility and transferable learning

Criterion details

Detailed criteria

Marine Works Project Award

The project scorecard tests the engineering response, delivery control and accepted result. Publicity or contract value does not alter the score.

Technical achievement - 25 points: Assesses the problem definition, engineering basis, appropriateness of the response, and quality of the accepted result.
Typical evidence: Design basis, approved changes, drawings, calculations, surveys, tests, completion records, and acceptance documentation.
Delivery and interface control - 25 points: Assesses control of temporary states, marine logistics, interfaces, uncertainty, programme, constructability, commissioning, and close-out.
Typical evidence: Method statements, interface registers, hold points, quality records, programme evidence, commissioning records, and close-out reports.
Safety and environmental responsibility - 15 points: Assesses demonstrated risk control, environmental performance, compliance, monitoring, and response to adverse conditions.
Typical evidence: Safety records, environmental monitoring, permit compliance, incident records, corrective actions, and independent assurance.
Accepted outcome - 20 points: Assesses the delivered configuration and result at formal acceptance or an equivalent documented close-out point.
Typical evidence: As-built records, certified surveys, tests, completion certificates, acceptance records, defects status, and client confirmation.
Transferable learning - 15 points: Assesses whether the documented delivery lesson is clear, bounded, and useful beyond the immediate project.
Typical evidence: Lessons learned, technical papers, method improvements, post-project reviews, limitations, and evidence of later application.

Detailed criteria

Marine Asset Performance Award

The asset scorecard uses a defined operating period and explicit demand, availability and maintenance records. Design capacity alone is not an operating result.

Operational performance - 30 points: Assesses function, capacity, reliability, availability, service continuity, and performance over a defined operating period.
Typical evidence: Operating series, throughput or service records, availability logs, downtime, demand denominators, and operator records.
Evidence quality and measurement - 25 points: Assesses whether baselines, periods, units, denominators, exclusions, and measurement responsibility support the claimed outcome.
Typical evidence: Baseline records, measurement protocols, monitoring datasets, audit trails, exclusions, independent checks, and data limitations.
Maintainability and resilience - 20 points: Assesses condition, inspection access, intervention burden, recovery, durability, and continuity under relevant exposure and demand.
Typical evidence: Inspection reports, maintenance history, condition surveys, failure or incident records, recovery data, and adaptation provisions.
Environmental and user value - 15 points: Assesses environmental performance and the measurable value delivered to asset users, operators, communities, or the wider marine system.
Typical evidence: Environmental monitoring, permit compliance, access or service data, user records, mitigation outcomes, and stakeholder evidence.
Transferable learning - 10 points: Assesses whether operating and lifecycle evidence produces a clear lesson for comparable marine assets.
Typical evidence: Operating reviews, maintenance lessons, lifecycle data, updated procedures, case notes, and evidence of application elsewhere.

Detailed criteria

Specialist Marine Engineering Award

The specialist scorecard isolates the entrant's technical contribution, its execution interfaces and the records that verify the installed result.

Technical contribution - 30 points: Assesses the defined specialist problem, alternatives, design basis, engineering judgement, and distinct contribution to the result.
Typical evidence: Design records, calculations, specifications, alternatives reviews, technical queries, approvals, and named contribution records.
Execution and interface control - 25 points: Assesses control of installation, temporary states, fabrication, tolerances, marine operations, and interfaces with other parties.
Typical evidence: Method statements, fabrication records, lift or installation plans, interface registers, hold points, surveys, and quality records.
Verification of result - 20 points: Assesses whether the specialist contribution was implemented and verified in the conditions for which it was selected.
Typical evidence: Test results, survey, commissioning, acceptance, inspection, monitoring, and independent technical confirmation.
Safety and environmental responsibility - 10 points: Assesses risk control and environmental responsibility within the entrant's specialist scope and interfaces.
Typical evidence: Risk assessments, permits, monitoring, incident records, changes, corrective actions, and assurance records.
Transferable learning - 15 points: Assesses the clarity, reproducibility, limitations, and wider professional value of the specialist lesson.
Typical evidence: Technical notes, lessons learned, validated methods, standards input, limitations, and evidence of reuse.

Detailed criteria

Coastal and Waterfront Resilience Award

The resilience scorecard begins with the hazard and consequence baseline and gives its largest weight to observed post-delivery performance.

Hazard and consequence baseline - 20 points: Assesses whether the relevant hazard, exposure, asset condition, consequence, and pre-intervention risk are clearly established.
Typical evidence: Hazard studies, event records, surveys, condition assessments, consequence analysis, design criteria, and baseline monitoring.
Technical response - 20 points: Assesses the appropriateness of the intervention, residual risk, maintainability, and relationship between design assumptions and delivery.
Typical evidence: Design basis, alternatives, drawings, modelling, construction and acceptance records, residual risk registers, and maintenance plans.
Observed performance - 30 points: Assesses post-delivery performance through monitoring, observed event response, recovery, or another independently reviewable operating record.
Typical evidence: Monitoring series, event observations, inspections, damage and downtime records, recovery data, and independent performance reports.
Environmental and community value - 15 points: Assesses environmental outcomes and evidenced effects on access, safety, continuity, livelihoods, or public value.
Typical evidence: Environmental monitoring, access and service data, consequence records, stakeholder evidence, and mitigation outcomes.
Adaptation and learning - 15 points: Assesses monitoring response, residual uncertainty, adaptation provisions, and lessons that can inform other exposed waterfronts.
Typical evidence: Adaptive management plans, trigger levels, maintenance changes, post-event reviews, limitations, and evidence of wider application.

Detailed criteria

Marine Works Knowledge Award

The knowledge scorecard tests method, provenance, originality, independent application and stable access to the professional contribution.

Professional value - 25 points: Assesses whether the contribution addresses a material marine works need and improves professional understanding, decision-making, or practice.
Typical evidence: Defined problem, intended users, professional review, demonstrated use cases, and evidence of value in practice.
Method and data integrity - 25 points: Assesses authorship, method, data provenance, validation, reproducibility, limitations, and the reliability of the knowledge record.
Typical evidence: Published method, source and data notes, validation records, peer or independent review, limitations, and correction history.
Originality - 20 points: Assesses the distinct contribution beyond existing guidance, datasets, methods, or established professional practice.
Typical evidence: Literature or practice comparison, prior-art review, version history, expert review, and a bounded statement of novelty.
Application or independent adoption - 15 points: Assesses documented application, adoption, citation, or independent technical review beyond the contribution's authors.
Typical evidence: Project applications, standards references, citations, user records, independent reviews, or documented adoption.
Accessibility and transferable learning - 15 points: Assesses whether the contribution is available in a stable form, intelligible to its intended users, and honest about access and reuse limits.
Typical evidence: Stable publication record, access route, documentation, user guidance, licensing or reuse terms, limitations, and update history.

0 - Not evidenced

No usable evidence for the criterion, or the submitted material does not address it.

1 - Limited

A relevant assertion or isolated record exists, but the basis, attribution, or outcome is weak.

2 - Adequate

The entry addresses the criterion with credible records, although material gaps or limitations remain.

3 - Strong

The achievement is well defined and supported by coherent, attributable evidence with controlled limitations.

4 - Excellent

The evidence demonstrates a substantial, well-controlled contribution and a clear result under demanding conditions.

5 - Exceptional

The contribution is unusually strong, independently supported, and capable of changing or materially advancing marine works practice.

Eligibility precedes scoring.

Programme administration checks entry identity, authority, category, and minimum evidence without assigning merit. Jurors then score independently before moderation. A missing record is treated as an evidence gap, not completed by assumption. The dated call must state the active categories, minimum overall score, any criterion floor, and decision method before entries open. These conditions and the published weights cannot change after opening.

Evidence standard

Independent scores

Jurors record individual criterion scores, evidence references, and concise reasons before seeing the other jurors' totals.

Moderation record

Material scoring differences are discussed against the published criteria. A changed score remains the juror's decision, and its reason is retained.

No automatic recipient

The highest score does not compel an award. The jury may make no award where the evidence or overall standard is insufficient.

Decision publication

IMWO will publish the category, recipient, recognised contribution, jury citation, and evidence boundary. It may publish aggregate scoring information, but confidential records and individual juror scores remain protected unless the dated call states otherwise.

Jury and independence Challenge grounds