This article explains the categories of awards offered at VEX Robotics Competition events, the required award structure, eligibility rules, and guidance for award deliberation in exceptional circumstances. It is written for judges, Judge Advisors, Event Partners, and volunteers.
Definitions of the terms used here are maintained in the central Glossary.
For the criteria of each individual award, see Award Descriptions.
Awards and recognition celebrate student achievement, reinforce a positive competition culture, and encourage growth throughout the robotics season. They are meant to recognize a wide range of student strengths, including innovation, leadership, teamwork, communication, perseverance, professionalism, and technical development, rather than competitive success alone.
Award Categories
Competition events may include several categories of awards, each recognizing a different form of student achievement.
Performance Awards
Performance Awards recognize achievement in competitive gameplay and match performance. These awards are based on factors such as tournament rankings, alliance success, strategic execution, consistency, and overall performance throughout the event, highlighting teams that excel under competition conditions. Examples may include:
- Tournament Champion
- Teamwork Champion
- Robot Skills Champion
Earning a Performance Award does not affect a team's eligibility for any Judged Award.
Judged Awards
Judged Awards recognize teams through interviews, engineering design notebook evaluations, and event observations. These awards highlight not only the final robot, but also how teams apply the engineering design process, document and iterate solutions, collaborate effectively, demonstrate leadership and communication skills, and exhibit authentic student ownership throughout the season.
Judged Awards are based on specific award criteria outlined in the Event Qualification Guide. Judges, with support from the Judge Advisor, determine award recipients using established rubrics and evaluation processes. Event Partners may select which eligible Judged Awards to offer from those listed in the Event Qualification Guide; however, the Excellence Award is required at all qualifying events that utilize judging. To be eligible for a Judged Award, teams must complete an interview at the event, and many awards also require the submission of a Digital Engineering Notebook. Examples may include:
- Excellence Award
- Design Award
- Innovate Award
- Think Award
- Amaze Award
- Build Award
- Create Award
- Judges Award
- Inspire Award
Nominated Awards
Optional Nominated Awards may be offered by Event Partners at both judged and non-judged events to allow event volunteers (Head Referee, Scorekeeping Referees, or Emcees) and/or judges to recognize teams that demonstrate outstanding enthusiasm, respect for competitors and volunteers, positive attitudes, and gracious conduct throughout the event. Examples include:
- Sportsmanship Award
- Energy Award
Recognition Awards
Optional Recognition Awards honor the contributions of volunteers, mentors, teachers, and sponsors who make robotics programs possible. These awards are determined by the Event Partner and are not selected by Judges. Examples include:
- Mentor of the Year
- Teacher of the Year
- Partner of the Year
- Volunteer of the Year
Award Structure
Official qualifying events that include judging must offer, at a minimum, the Excellence Award, Design Award, and Judges Award. Additional judged awards may be offered based on event size, program, season, and published award requirements.
Each award may be presented only once per event, except for the Excellence Award, Design Award, and Judges Award, as permitted in the Event and Championship Qualification requirements. Awards should not be presented if no team meets the award criteria. A team may only earn one Judged Award per event but may also receive Performance Awards and Nominated Awards.
Award Eligibility
To remain eligible for awards and advancement opportunities, teams will be required to complete registration requirements, participate in scheduled matches, comply with event rules, pass inspection procedures, and demonstrate authentic student-centered participation throughout the event.
Certain awards may include additional requirements such as notebook submission, interview participation, outreach documentation, or technical demonstrations depending on the award category and event structure. Eligibility standards should remain clear, consistent, accessible, and transparent for all participants.
Exceptional Circumstances
The Design and Excellence Awards are intended to recognize teams that best exemplify the educational values of the program through authentic student ownership, strong engineering practices, effective communication, and, in the case of the Excellence Award, outstanding competitive performance.
Occasionally, judges may determine that no team fully satisfies every criterion for one or both awards. In these situations, the judging panel should use the following best practices.
Verify the Criteria
Before determining that no team qualifies, confirm that:
- Notebook evaluations and interview rankings are complete.
- Qualification and Skills rankings have been calculated correctly.
- Student-centered and conduct concerns have been appropriately considered.
- All teams have been evaluated using the published criteria and processes.
Focus on the Intent of the Award
Design Award
Consider which team most closely demonstrates:
- A strong, student-driven Engineering Design Process.
- A Fully Developed Engineering Notebook that clearly documents design decisions, testing, and iteration.
- Consistency between the notebook, interview, and robot design.
- Effective communication, teamwork, professionalism, and project management.
Excellence Award
Consider which team most closely demonstrates:
- The qualities of the Design Award.
- Overall excellence across judged and performance areas.
- Positive conduct, professionalism, and teamwork.
- Strong and consistent on-field performance relative to the event.
Consider the Entire Body of Evaluation
Avoid eliminating teams solely because of a single weakness if they strongly demonstrate the other aspects of the award. Review all available evidence, including:
- Engineering Notebook
- Team Interview
- Robot design and performance
- Qualification and Skills rankings (for Excellence)
- Student-centered evidence
- Conduct and professionalism
Revisit Deliberations
If no clear candidate emerges:
For the Design Award
- Re-examine the highest-ranked Fully Developed notebooks and interview candidates.
- Compare the strengths and weaknesses of the leading teams.
- Determine which team best demonstrates an organized and authentic Engineering Design Process.
For the Excellence Award
- Re-examine the top Design Award candidates that also meet the performance requirements.
- Compare the strengths and weaknesses of the leading teams.
- Determine which team best exemplifies overall excellence at the event.
Document the Decision
The Judge Advisor should note:
- Which criteria were not fully met by any team.
- Why the selected team was determined to be the strongest overall candidate.
- Any unusual circumstances that affected deliberations.
Maintain Consistency and Integrity
Do not:
- Invent new criteria or standards.
- Ignore student-centered or conduct concerns.
- Use personal preferences, prior knowledge, or past performance.
- Select a team solely because they won the tournament or achieved the highest scores.
- Lower or waive the requirement for a Fully Developed Engineering Notebook for the Design Award.
The goal in exceptional circumstances is not to identify a perfect team, but rather to determine which team most closely embodies the purpose, values, and intent of the Design or Excellence Award while maintaining fairness, consistency, and the integrity of the judging process.