Judges inspect the team’s ASV and assess technical design, technical innovation, and craftsmanship of the design. Teams receive an assigned 30-minute slot. After the assessment, teams should make themselves available for a team photo and optional video interview. Please find the latest assessment schedule here: roboboat.org/2025.
Team members should be present to answer technical questions posed by the judges during this inspection and be prepared to explain their design strategy and how decisions made impacts on the technical design, functionality, and craftsmanship.
The system assessment is worth a total of 180 points. The scoring metrics include a scoring weight with guidance for scoring considerations that are provided to the judges during evaluations.
Outstanding
Design and implementation of systems and subsystems are well aligned with team's strategy, design decisions, and engineering principles. Clear and thoughtful design choices are evident in the technical functions, key decisions, and testing regimen.
Strong
Good and knowledgeable rationale and execution of design selections made, aligning with team's strategy, design decisions, and engineering principles.
Average
Adequate explanation of technical design decisions, equipment selections, and testing regimen, mostly evident in the vehicle and subsystems.
Below Average
Rationale of technical design is briefly covered with minimal alignment with team's strategy, design decisions, and engineering principles.
Requirements Not Met
Design and implementation of systems and subsystems are not aligned with team's strategy, design decisions, and engineering principles.
Outstanding
Full system demonstrates creative and innovative solutions by applying existing technology in novel ways within the system, using existing technology in a previously unintended way, or creating new technology or products incorporated into the system.
Strong
Clear evidence of innovative approaches across multiple sub-systems. Research and testing were conducted throughout the development process.
Average
There is moderate evidence that creative and innovative solutions were incorporated into system to improve performance.
Below Average
Little evidence of creativity or innovation in design choices throughout the system.
Requirements Not Met
No technical innovation noted.
Outstanding
System is assembled with exquisite care and thoughtful attention to detail and aesthetics. Construction and improvisations are neatly executed to maintain high levels of functionality, durability, and adherence to the team's design philosophy. Any vehicle adornment demonstrates creativity, originality, etc.
Strong
System is assembled with care and attention to detail and aesthetics. Construction and improvisations maintain acceptable levels of functionality, durability, and adherence to the team's design philosophy.
Average
System is assembled to execute acceptable levels of functionality, durability and adherence to team’s design philosophy.
Below Average
Minimal evidence that system is assembled with care and attention to detail and aesthetics. Adherence to team’s design philosophy is vague and unclear.
Requirements Not Met
Evident hazards or potential hazards throughout the system. The system was assembled with minimal care and attention to detail. Little to no attention to aesthetics.
This section includes detailed requirements and instructions for the design documentation portion of the competition.
Prior to the on-site competition, teams are required to develop and submit (1) technical design report, (2) team website, and (3) team introduction video. On-site at the competition, teams are required to conduct (1) an oral design strategy presentation and (2) system assessment by subject matter expert judges.
The following design documentation is delivered online before the on-site competition. Instructions on how to submit deliverables and the deadlines can be found in Section 1.4 Competition Schedule and Timeline. Teams are encouraged to refer to the past top-scored deliverables: roboboat.org/past-programs.
The following design documentation is delivered on-site during the competition.
Teams are required to give a design strategy presentation to a panel of subject matter expert judges. The goal of the presentation is to share the team’s system design approach to the challenges presented in the Autonomy Challenge, specifically the capabilities required for each task. The presentation should include:
a concise description of the team's strategic vision, and
how the vehicle design compliments the team’s goals.
This presentation must be conducted in English and may include visual aids (i.e. digital slides, poster board). If digital slides are used, teams must provide their own computer and adapters for an HDMI connecter to use the presentation display monitor. Teams receive an assigned 30-minute presentation time. Please find the latest presentation schedule here: roboboat.org/2025. This presentation includes:
Team introduction video - 3 minutes
Team presentation – 20 minutes
Judges’ question and answer – 5 minutes
The design strategy presentation is worth a total of 180 points. The scoring metrics include a scoring weight with guidance for scoring considerations that are provided to the judges during evaluations.
Outstanding
Presentation includes a concise description of the team's strategic vision and how the vehicle design compliments their goals. The team clearly explains how they developed their competition strategy.
Strong
Presentation describes their competition strategy and how their vehicle design aligns with meeting their competition goals.
Average
Presentation includes a brief overview of how the vehicle design aligns with the team’s competition strategy and goals.
Below Average
Team mentions a competition strategy but no additional details on how it was developed or how it led to their strategic vision.
Requirements Not Met
Team does not mention their competition strategy, vision or how their vehicle design is aligned with vision.
Outstanding
Team presents their design process and how their decisions relate to their overall competition strategy. Lessons learned from testing or previous competition experience are described, including application throughout the design process.
Strong
Presentation includes a description of the team’s design process and includes narrative on how testing or previous experience influenced vehicle design.
Average
Team describes the rationale behind the vehicle design process.
Below Average
Presentation includes mention of the design process, lacking a clear rationale of design choices.
Requirements Not Met
No mention of the team’s design process or the rationale behind the design process.
Outstanding
Presentation materials and team members’ knowledge are effective and support the team's message. Team members are engaging, respectful, and professional, while interacting positively with the judges and each other.
Strong
Presentation materials are presented in a professional manner and support the team’s message. Presentation is well prepared and appears to be rehearsed in advance.
Average
Presentation materials are presented in a mostly professional manner and support the team’s message.
Below Average
Presentation materials and styles are adequate but less than engaging.
Requirements Not Met
The message was not effective, and the presentation was not organized.
Outstanding
The team effectively uses evidence, experience, and research from their project to inform responses to all questions and discussion posed by the judges.
Strong
The team responded professionally and knowledgeably to judges’ questions.
Average
The team responded adequately to most or all of the judges’ questions, mostly interacting with courtesy and professionalism.
Below Average
The team did not provide sufficient answers to the judges’ questions and interacted with minimal courtesy and professionalism.
Requirements Not Met
Team members were not able to respond to many or all questions and did not take the initiative to engage in dialogue with the judges.
Teams are required to create a video introducing their team members and highlighting their team personality. This video is meant to be a creative showcase of what makes each team unique, such as the mission of the team or the team culture. Teams should consider this video as an “elevator pitch” or project proposal for an opportunity to earn additional funding or support.
Video must be conducted in English or include subtitles in English.
Video must be no more than three (3) minutes in length.
Video may include graphics, vehicle performance, and/or simulation.
Videos must be hosted by team. Teams have the choice of hosting on YouTube, Vimeo, or on their Team Website. The video must follow YouTube , including appropriate music copyright management.
The team video submission is worth a total of 120 points. The scoring metrics include a scoring weight with guidance for scoring considerations that are provided to the judges during evaluations.
Outstanding
Video is a complete introduction of the team makeup including team members, sub-teams, activities, mentors, and major sponsors. Organization of video information is logical and compelling.
Strong
The viewer is left with good understanding of the information shared in video.
Average
Video information is somewhat scattered throughout video, leaving the viewer lacking complete understanding of project.
Below Average
Video provides incomplete information regarding the team members, activities, or progress. The information presented is extraneous, confusing, or low quality.
Requirements Not Met
No organizational strategy is apparent.
Outstanding
Effective and compelling use of video medium to communicate the introduction of the team. Easy for non-technical viewer to understand and support. [You're left wanting to learn more.]
Strong
Exhibits moderately compelling use of video medium to communicate the introduction of the team. Strong potential, moderately compelling, mostly understandable to non-technical viewer. [You're left strongly considering to learn more.]
Average
Adequately uses the video medium to introduce the team. Not difficult to understand, but not compelling either.
Below Average
Exhibits some ability to use video to attempt to introduce team and project overview. Difficult for viewer to understand and/or was not compelling. [You're left unenthused.]
Requirements Not Met
Poorly used video medium to convey team introduction. Information was as not clearly understood and was not compelling. [You're left with little information.]
Outstanding
Team creativity and enthusiasm is clearly evident in the video. Appropriate use of humor is understated and well done. Video captures user’s attention without diminishing or obscuring the information delivered. Effects of careful post-production editing are clear.
Strong
Some creativity has been used throughout video. The visual style and tone are consistent throughout video.
Average
Exhibits a moderate attempt at creativity.
Below Average
Little attempt made to include creative or imaginative ideas in video. Poor visual effects and enthusiasm for the project.
Requirements Not Met
Little imagination or creativity is evident in production. Information is presented lacking enthusiasm.
Strong
All formatting guidelines are followed. Video is conducted in English or includes English subtitles, video is no more than 3 minutes in length, and video is hosted on the YouTube, Vimeo, or on their Team Website.
Requirements Not Met
Video does not follow formatting requirements.
Outstanding
Visuals immediately draws attention. Overall, the video is solid in frame (not shaky), correctly lighted, in precision focus, appropriately segmented, and visually clear in all respects. Transitions between segments are clear and smooth. The video is less than 3 minutes total runtime.
Strong
Good visual impression. Majority of video is clear, adequately lit, and places people and objects in recognizable scale and perspective. Video segments are generally of the appropriate length, transition well, and are related to each other. Use of video effects is good. Runtime is less than 3 minutes.
Average
Video quality is satisfactory.
Below Average
Frames and segments are shaky, distracting or poorly lit. Some segments are out of focus. Some heavy shadows are obscuring viewpoint. Visual effects are distracting rather than informative. Video exceeds 3 minutes in length.
Requirements Not Met
No focus on visual quality. Video exceeds 3 minutes in length.
Teams are required to submit a website in English that documents their team, vehicle design, and competition approach.
Website Content: Layout and detailed contents of the website are left for the teams to develop; however, the team website must include:
Current team name and contact information
Vehicle photos and/or videos
Supporting media, which may include:
Instructional/Informative videos
Procedures (text, images)
Design decision documentation (text, images, videos)
Blogs for historical records of build progress
List of sponsors with logos
Website Quality: Websites are often the first impression of a project. Potential supporters such as supervisors, sponsors, or advisors must find the website visually appealing and easy to navigate. Development of the website should include careful consideration of user experience, including:
Written in English, or English translation provided
Clear prioritization of key content
Site search functionality
Basic design elements: contrast, repetition, alignment and grouping to organize/highlight content
User accessibility, as defined by the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative: www.w3.org/WAI
Cross browser compatibility for modern web browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, MS Edge)
A mobile friendly display
The website submission is worth a total of 180 points. The scoring metrics include a scoring weight with guidance for scoring considerations that are provided to the judges during evaluations.
Outstanding
Team website includes all required team information, including the team’s name and contact information, and a list of team members and sponsors. All mentions of the vehicle are relevant to the current competition year.
Strong
Team website provides a brief introduction to the team, team members and sponsors. There is supporting media on the vehicle.
Average
Team website introduces the team and/or team members.
Below Average
Team website provides little to no information on the team. There is no mention of the vehicle.
Requirements Not Met
The required team information is not included on the website.
Outstanding
Vehicle development and testing process is thoroughly documented with instructional and informative supporting media and historical recording. This could include photographs, diagrams, videos, procedures (text + images), design documentation (text + images + video), or blogs for historical records.
Strong
Good documentation on vehicle development and testing process is provided. Supporting media is accessible.
Average
Vehicle development and testing process is adequately presented with some evidence of supporting media.[LI1]
Below Average
Few pictures or videos of the vehicle, but no instructional or informative documentation included.
Requirements Not Met
No visuals or documentation of the vehicle is available on the website.
Outstanding
Website places a heavy emphasis on human factors. Layout is visually appealing, easily maneuverable, and does an excellent job of drawing user’s attention to relevant content.
Strong
Website considers user experience. Layout does a good job of drawing user’s attention. Users can navigate the site easily and quickly.
Average
Website quality was adequate. Users can navigate the site to find most information.
Below Average
Layout and/or design makes it difficult to find information. Website does not have a user-friendly display.
Requirements Not Met
Website is busy and difficult to read; no guidance on maneuvering site.
Each team is required to submit a TDR that describes the team’s design principles and competition priorities. The report should address the rationale for which autonomy challenge tasks have been chosen to attempt and how this competition strategy influenced the design decisions for the hull, propulsion system, control systems, and autonomy system. Teams must follow the TDR instructions provided below. To be eligible for full points, teams must submit their TDR by the deadline found in Section 1.4.
A strong TDR provides a coherent narrative and addresses the elements of the rubric as much as possible, including citing references used. The competition strategy justifies the choices of autonomy challenge tasks and design decisions that trace back to those task choices. The report also identifies which software tools allow the team to accomplish the tasks chosen.
The technical design report is worth a total of 200 points. The outline of each content section includes a scoring weight with guidance for scoring considerations that are provided to the judges during evaluations.
The content of the written paper shall include the following sections:
Technical Content: Competition Strategy, Design Strategy, Testing Strategy
Appendix A: Test Plan & Results (optional)
The format of the written paper shall adhere to the following guidelines:
6 page limit (excluding References and Appendices)
8.5 x 11 in. page size
Margins ≥ 0.8 in.
Font: Times New Roman 12pt
Header on every page including team name and page number
Submitted in .pdf format
Optional Formatting: Teams may choose to follow the two-column format, editorial style for IEEE Conference Proceedings: www.ieee.org/conferences/publishing/templates.html.
RoboNation Tip: It is recommended that papers be peer-reviewed prior to submission. For example, teams can utilize resources at their institution, fellow students, or professional editing services.
Formatting Scoring Metrics (5% of score)
Strong
Paper follows page limit, and all formatting guidelines are followed. The document is professionally organized. All required sections are included and easy to identify. All grammar, punctuation, and spelling are correct. The style follows that expected of a scientific paper submitted for publication.
Requirements Not Met
Formatting guidelines are not followed and the layout is unorganized.
The abstract is a short summary of the main points in the paper. The abstract should summarize the linkage between overall competition strategy and system architecture, design, and engineering decisions.
Outstanding
Abstract is engaging, lists the scope of the work, and provides a thorough summary of the paper.
Strong
Abstract provides a strong overview of the scope of work and a detailed summary of the paper.
Average
An adequate explanation of the scope of work is included with a brief summary of the paper.
Below Average
Abstract provides a basic summary of the paper.
Poor
Abstract section is included but does not serve the intent of an abstract. The abstract is treated as an introduction and provides no summary of the paper.
Requirements Not Met
No abstract is included.
Participating in the competition, as in all research projects, involves leveraging resources and support beyond the efforts of individual team members. This support can take many forms such as technical advice, labor, equipment, facilities, and monetary contributions. Acknowledging those who have supported efforts is important.
Strong
Acknowledgements detail supporting personnel and their contributions as well as resources. Sponsors and their contributions are acknowledged.
Average
Acknowledgements include a list of supporters and sponsors with little or no detail of the support provided.
Poor
Acknowledgements provide a general thank you but do not specify particular contributions.
Requirements Not Met
No acknowledgements are included.
As with any technical publication, original ideas and content not generated by the paper’s authors should be properly cited. The references should follow the IEEE Conference Proceedings citation style.
Strong
Sources include notable technical references including technical papers and articles. Use of the source materials are evident in the TDR. Sources are thoroughly documented. The IEEE citation style is correctly utilized.
Average
Sources are adequate and documented correctly with the IEEE citation style is utilized.
Poor
Limited sources are documented but there is no adherence to the IEEE citation style.
Requirements Not Met
No sources or citations are documented.
The paper must include details on the team’s strategy for the competition, including the plans for approaching the course and how the vehicle design relates to this approach. The course consists of multiple tasks with associated points for accomplished behaviors. The only required task is navigating through the start gates. Teams may choose to attempt the other tasks and complete the tasks in any order. The more tasks a vehicle is designed and engineered to accomplish, the more complex the overall vehicle system will be.
Discuss the team's strategy on trade-offs between system complexity and reliability. For example, teams have a limited number of working hours to prepare for the competition; this time could be spent adding additional capabilities or testing and improving the reliability of an existing capability. As system complexity grows, changes in subsystems can propagate in unmanageable ways when time is limited. Based on history and the system engineering talents of the team, include a description the team’s strategic vision.
Outstanding
Detailed description of the team's strategic vision and how the vehicle design compliments their goals. Detailed discussion on trade-off studies between system complexity and reliability during design development process.
Strong
The team's goals are clearly evident but not discussed in detail. Trade-off studies evident but lacking details.
Average
Brief mention of team’s strategic goals and/or trade-off studies.
Below Average
Document hints at a goal for competition and/or trade-off studies.
Poor
Discussion of the team’s vision is incoherent; rationale for competition goals is not discussed.
Requirements Not Met
No mention of competition goals.
Given the strategy for success at the competition and the approach to managing complexity, the paper must include a description of the system design to meet the goals they established for the competition. Justification for design choices should be clear. Discuss how components and subsystems were selected and integrated on the vehicle. For teams that are working with a previously designed vehicle, discuss how the design meets the current competition strategy and any modifications needed at the component, subsystem, and/or integrated system levels. Describe the experience in making both architectural/design decisions and system engineering decisions.
This section should not include detailed component descriptions and/or specifications not of original design.
Outstanding
Provides in-depth explanations on design strategy and clearly identifies creative aspects of system. Creative design methodology is justified with required calculation steps and visual aids. Content clearly exhibits a Systems Engineering approach.
Strong
Provides explanations on design strategy and identifies creative aspects of system. Creative design methodology is justified with calculation steps and visual aids. Content hints at a Systems Engineering approach.
Average
Provides some information on design strategy and creative aspects of system. Creative design methodology is supported with a few calculations. Content could be justified as a Systems Engineering approach.
Below Average
Provides little information on design and creative design methodology. Little evidence to support applications of a Systems Engineering approach.
Poor
Provides limited information on the creative aspects of system. Creative design methodology is hypothesized. No evidence to support application of Systems Engineering principles.
Requirements Not Met
Creative aspects of design are not described.
Testing and experimentation is a crucial step to preparing and innovating a system design that strongly correlates with a competitive performance in the arena. The paper must include the approach to a testing strategy, including various test plans, both physically and in simulation.
Discuss considerations of the time needed to thoroughly test to meet the determined goals and the demands of design and engineering with those of testing and experimentation.
Outstanding
Testing approach is presented in great detail, to include test strategy and plans. Component testing, sensor and control systems testing done in accordance with a test plan.
Strong
Detailed testing approach, test strategy, and plans. Documentation shows good overview of components, sensors and control system testing.
Average
Testing approach is presented with sufficient detail, including mention of test strategy and plans. Documentation shows components, sensors and control system testing.
Below Average
Testing approach is presented with little to no detail. No mention of components or sensors testing.
Poor
Testing is done to a certain degree. No components and sensors are tested independently. There are no test plans.
Requirements Not Met
No mention of testing or connection with the system design.
Based off the testing approach outlined in the paper, this appendix showcases the test plan that was developed and the detailed results that came out of testing. Teams should present their plans for testing, including algorithm testing in a virtual environment, component testing in a laboratory setting, subsystem testing in a relevant environment, and full system testing in a pseudo-competition environment. Test set up should be included and results presented. Any design modifications or changes in competition strategy as a result of testing should be discussed.
While this appendix is not required, excellence seen in this section can be eligible for a special judges’ award.
The appendix may include detailed documentation covering the following areas:
Scope: Objectives and test cases (this may also specify what was not included in tests)
Schedule: Start/end dates and deadlines
Resource and Tools: Resources and tools needed to conduct tests and assess results
Environment: Description of the test environment, configurations, and availability
Risk Management: Outline potential risks that could occur throughout testing
Results: Detailed outcomes of test cases