COVID-19: Transparent medical grade mask

The National Research Council of Canada (NRC), in collaboration with Health Canada (HC) and Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), is seeking solutions to develop and manufacture disposable transparent medical masks to be used by deaf and hard of hearing healthcare workers and patients to protect from transfer of body fluids, microorganisms and particulate material. The transparent masks shall facilitate full facial recognition and lip/speech reading alongside other communication methods.

Challenge sponsor:
National Research Council of Canada (NRC)

Funding mechanism:
Grant

Opening date:
August 6, 2021

Closing date:
September 7, 2021 14:00 Eastern Daylight Time

Prospective applicants should refer to the Innovative Solutions Canada Grant Instructions and Procedures document.

Challenge

Problem statement

It has become clear during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that the standard opaque medical masks pose a challenge for effective communication in healthcare settings, especially for deaf and hard of hearing people and other individuals who rely on visual cues or lip/speech reading. The availability of a transparent version of a medical mask would facilitate communication of these individuals.

This challenge specifies requirements for single-use transparent medical masks.

This challenge does not apply to transparent face coverings used for communications. These devices do not meet Health Canada recognized medical mask standards.

This challenge does not apply to reusable filtering face-piece respirators (FFRs) which are covered under NIOSH, HC Guidance and other existing standards.


Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The proposed solution must:

  1. Lead to the industrial scale manufacturing of transparent disposable medical masks (at least Level 1, as per the table below).
  2. Must reach a production capacity of 100,000 masks/ month at the end of Phase 2, with clear plans to increase larger scale manufacturing and commercialization (up to 1 million masks/month).
  3. Must be manufactured in a range of adult and pediatric sizes.
  4. Must allow for individual and/or bulk packaging.
  5. Meet the following performance and technical requirements, as demonstrated by samples and test data:
    1. Provide a transparent section on the front of the mask to allow for facial visibility. The transparent section must be large enough to provide at least for full visibility of the mouth.
    2. Be antifogging to allow for clear visibility of the mouth area during regular continuous use for a minimum of 4 hours.
    3. Must use lint-free and latex-free materials in the construction of the product
    4. Meet the following technical requirements:
      Test Category
      Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

      ASTM F2101-19: Bacterial Filtration EfficiencyFootnote 1, %

      95

      98

      98

      Differential PressureFootnote 2 mmH2O (Pa)

      <6.5 (64)

      <7.5 (74)

      <7.5 (74)

       Submicron Particulate filtration efficiencyFootnote 2, % 

      95

      98

      98

      ASTM F1682-17: Synthetic Blood Resistance mmHg (including at seams if present in design)

      80

      120

      160

      16 CFR Part 1610 (2008): Flame Spread

      Class 1

      Class 1

      Class 1

  6. Be manufactured in Canada.
  7. Demonstrate, via a cost analysis, that reasonable cost targets can be met to support commercial/market adoption.
  8. Demonstrate with data that the product provides a comfortable fit during 4 hours of continuous use by incorporating a design that includes a moldable bridge at nose for good fit, and is made of material and finish that produces minimal glare or eye fatigue (for example, some colours or patterns in the material distract the focus from the mouth).
  9. Demonstrate with data that sound reduction is no more than 6 dB when measured at 6 ft. in an anechoic chamber when compared to sound generated with no mask at same 6 ft. distance and same measuring device. The sound must be generated by a GRAS (or equivalent) head and torso simulator that plays white noise through the artificial mouth (KEMAR 45BC or equivalent manikin with mouth simulator and loudspeaker). The output acoustic signal must be measured and recorded by a microphone located at 6 ft. distance.
  10. Ten (10) samples of the transparent medical mask must be submitted to NRC at the end of phase 1.
  11. Ten (10) samples of the transparent medical mask must be submitted to NRC at the end of phase 2.

Additional outcomes

The proposed solution should:

  1. Be non-toxic, safe for inhalation, and non-skin sensitizing or irritating (applicants should keep in mind that Health Canada requires evidence that these products meet ISO 10993-1, -5, and -10 for bio-compatibility: cytotoxicity, sensitization and skin irritation).
  2. Be manufactured from environmentally friendly materials (compostable, recyclable, reusable, biodegradable etc.).

Background and context

The COVID-19 pandemic has generated an increased demand for Canadian-made Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) products worn by both healthcare workers and the general public. The consumption of disposable non-medical masks, surgical masks, respirators (e.g., N95s) and surgical gowns has increased significantly. Existing PPE devices are opaque and create communication barriers for people with hearing loss and/or communication difficulties. 

According to the Official statement from Speech-Language & Audiology Canada (SAC) in Canada, "an estimated 4.6 million adults have hearing loss that affects their ability to hear typical speech and an estimated 8.4 million adults have some degree of high-frequency hearing loss. Up to 1 in 5 children in elementary school experience temporary hearing loss (e.g. due to ear infections) during the school year. As well, more than 10% of school-aged children have speech, language and communication challenges. In older adults, communication difficulties are often associated with neurological conditions such as stroke and Parkinson's disease. Transparent masks can facilitate communication with people with hearing loss and communication difficulties and assist when providing speech-language pathology and audiology services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Transparent masks preserve important visual cues (including lip/speech reading) and facial expressions critical for effective communication; however, masks and face coverings may dampen and/or degrade the speech signal." Therefore many government organizations, educational sectors, dental offices, veterinarian offices, and other companies or health agencies would benefit from the availability of a transparent medical mask, presenting market opportunities for the manufacturers of these devices.

Please refer to the Health Canada website for a full description of medical masks.

The following documents may be relevant. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.

  • BS EN 14683 : 2019: Medical face masks – requirements and test methods
  • ASTM F2100 : 2019:  Medical face masks – Requirements and test methods
  • EN ISO 15223-1:2016: Medical devices – Symbols to be used with medical device labels, labelling and information to be supplied – Part 1: General requirements
  • EN 1041:2008+A1:2013: Information supplied by the manufacturer of medical devices
  • ISO 22609:2004: Clothing for protection against infectious agents – Medical face masks – Test method for resistance against penetration by synthetic blood (fixed volume, horizontally projected)
  • BS EN 166:2002: Personal eye protection – Specifications

Related links:

Glossary of Terms:

For the purposes of this web page, the following terms and definitions apply:

Filter area:
An area of the mask, usually consisting of filter material and other layers as necessary to support the filter material. The filter area can also include or be replaced by, for example, foam strips used for seating the mask on the face, if that material is intended to allow the passage of air to aid the breathability of the mask.
Face coverings (also known as non-medical masks):
Source control masks (to help control an infected wearer from transmitting the virus to others) that are made from a variety of woven fabrics. Face coverings may be made of different combinations of fabrics, layering sequences and available in diverse shapes. They are a sewn mask secured with ties or straps around the head or behind the ears. They are factory-made or made from household items such as scarves or t-shirts. The fabrics and/or materials used in face coverings are not the same as the ones used in medical masks or respirators.
Medical device: 
A device within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, but does not include any device that is intended for use in relation to animals.
Medical masks:
Includes surgical, procedural, isolation and other infection control devices intended to offer protection to the environment (i.e. surgical field, etc). They are designed with 3 or more layers of non-woven materials and meet labelled filtration levels (greater than 95% using recognized standards. 
Personal protective equipment (PPE): 
Personal protective equipment consists of gowns, gloves, medical masks, facial protection (masks and eye protection, face shields or masks with visor attachment) or respirators.
Respirator:
A device that is tested and certified by procedures established by testing and certification agencies recognized by the authority having jurisdiction and is used to protect the user from inhaling a hazardous atmosphere. The most common respirator used in health care is a N95 half-face piece-filtering respirator. It is a personal protective device that fits tightly around the nose and mouth of the wearer. It is used to reduce the risk to the wearer of inhaling hazardous airborne particles and aerosols, including dust particles and infectious agents.
Transparent area:
An area of the mask, usually consisting of a transparent plastic area, panel or molding, which aids the visibility of the wearer's lips, mouth and the majority of their face.
Transparent face coverings:
provide source control and facilitate communications.  They may or may not meet partial effectiveness for filtration or fluid resistance.
Transparent medical masks:
help reduce the spread of infectious particles to protect the environment (source control) while offering the benefit of visualization of the mouth for enhanced communication while wearing a medical mask.   The transparent medical mask must meet all the requirements of medical mask standards as detailed in this document.
Source control:
The wearing of a mask by an infected individual to prevent onward transmission.
Wearer protection:
The wearing of a mask for protection against droplet or splash to the wearer when in close proximity an infected individual (for example, within 2 meters for COVID-19 or influenza).

Maximum grant value and travel

Multiple grants could result from this Challenge.

Phase 1:

  • The maximum funding available for any Phase 1 Grant resulting from this Challenge is : $150,000 CAD
  • The maximum duration for any Phase 1 project funded by a grant resulting from this Challenge is up to 4 months
  • Estimated number of Phase 1 grants: 2

Phase 2:

  • The maximum funding available for any Phase 2 Grant resulting from this Challenge is : $1,000,000 CAD
  • The maximum duration for any Phase 2 project funded by a grant resulting from this Challenge is up to 8 months
    • Note: Only eligible businesses that have completed Phase 1 could be considered for Phase 2.
  • Estimated number of Phase 2 grants: 2

Note: Selected companies are eligible to receive one grant per phase per challenge.  

This disclosure is made in good faith and does not commit Canada to award any grant for the total approximate funding. Final decisions on the number of Phase 1 and Phase 2 awards will be made by Canada on the basis of factors such as evaluation results, departmental priorities and availability of funds. Canada reserves the right to make partial awards and to negotiate project scope changes.

Travel

Kick-off meeting

A project kick-off meeting will be conducted by video conference or teleconference.

Progress review meeting(s)

Progress review meetings will be conducted by videoconference or teleconference.

During the project, NRC may request a site visit to the applicant's facilities, at NRC's expense, to better understand the technology/manufacturing processes and validate production facilities. Any site will respect pandemic-related health and safety protocols, procedures, and approvals.

Final review meeting

Virtual meeting- A final review meeting will be conducted virtually, via videoconference or teleconference.

The review and evaluation of the proof-of concept to verify fit, comfort and sound reduction of the samples will be conducted by an independent focus group, comprised of participants selected by NRC and its partner agencies, at NRC's expense.

Applicants that demonstrate successful completion of Phase 1 will be invited to submit a proposal for Phase 2.

Eligibility

Solution proposals can only be submitted by a small business that meets all of the following criteria:

  • for profit
  • incorporated in Canada (federally or provincially)
  • 499 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) employeesFootnote *
  • research and development activities that take place in Canada
  • 50% or more of its annual wages, salaries and fees are currently paid to employees and contractors who spend the majority of their time working in CanadaFootnote *
  • 50% or more of its FTE employees have Canada as their ordinary place of workFootnote *
  • 50% or more of its senior executives (Vice President and above) have Canada as their principal residenceFootnote *

Evaluation criteria

The applicant must complete the Challenge Stream Electronic Submission Form with a degree of information sufficient to enable Canada's assessment of the proposal against the criteria and the Evaluation Schema. The information must demonstrate how the proposal meets the criterion.

Part 1: Mandatory Criteria

Proposals must meet all mandatory criteria identified by achieving a "Pass" in order to proceed to Part 2. Proposals that do not meet all mandatory criteria will be deemed non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Mandatory Criteria

(Applicant's proposal must address)

Question 1 a: Scope

Describe the proposed solution and demonstrate how it responds to the challenge. Include in your description the scientific and technological basis upon which the solution is proposed and clearly demonstrate how the solution meets all of the Essential (Mandatory) Outcomes (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice.

Evaluation Schema (Mandatory - Pass/Fail)

Pass

The Applicant's proposed solution is clearly articulated, within the scope for the challenge and addresses all Essential (Mandatory) Outcomes (if identified) in the Challenge Notice.

Fail

The proposed solution is articulated as out of scope for the challenge.
OR
The proposal does not clearly demonstrate how the proposed solution addresses all Essential Outcomes listed in the challenge.
OR
The proposed solution is poorly described and does not permit concrete analysis.
OR
There is little to no scientific and/or technological evidence that the proposed solution is likely to meet the challenge.

Question 2: Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
  • Indicate the current TRL of the proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Electronic Submission Form)
  • Describe the research and development activities that have taken place to bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.
Evaluation Schema (Mandatory - Pass/Fail)

Pass: The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution is currently between TRLs 1 and 6 (inclusive), and provided justification by explaining the research and development (R&D) that has taken place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.

Fail: The Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 1 to 6 (inclusive) including:

  • There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment.
  • The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research.
  • The solution is demonstrated at TRL 7 or higher.
  • Insufficient/unclear/no justification explaining the R&D that took place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.
  • The explanation simply paraphrases the description of a given TRL level.
Question 3a: Innovation

Demonstrate how the proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation below:

  • An inventionFootnote *, new technology or new process that is not currently available in the marketplace.
  • Significant modifications to the application of existing technologies/components/processes that are applied in a setting or condition for which current applications are not possible or feasible.
  • An improvement in functionality, cost or performance over an existing technology/process that is considered state-of-the-art or the current industry best practice.
Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)

Pass:

The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation.

Fail:

  • Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed solution meets any of the ISC definitions of innovation; OR
  • Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution is an incremental improvement, "good engineering", or a technology that would go ahead in the normal course of product development (i.e. the next version or release).
Question 3b: Advance on State of the Art

Describe in detail the competitive advantages and level of advancement over existing technologies. Where appropriate, name existing technologies as well as potential substitutes or competitors.

To demonstrate this, proposals should include the following information:

  • Improvements (minor or major) over existing technologies or substitutes. Use direct comparison.
  • How the proposed innovation will create competitive advantages in existing market niches or market spaces.
Evaluation Schema (Mandatory Criteria – Pass/Fail + Points)

0 points/Fail:

  • The Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed solution advances the state-of-the-art over existing technologies, including available competing solutions; OR
  • The proposed solution improves minimally upon the current state of the art, though not sufficiently enough to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; OR
  • The stated advancements are described in general terms but are not substantiated with specific, measurable evidence.

5 points/Pass:

  • The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one or two minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that have potential to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.

12 points/Pass:

  • The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers three or more minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that together are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; OR
  • The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one significant improvement to existing technologies that is likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches

20 points/Pass:

  • The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers two or more significant improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches and could define new market spaces; OR
  • The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution can be considered a new benchmark of state of the art that is clearly ahead of competitors and that is likely to define new market spaces

Part 2: Point-Rated Criteria

Proposals must meet the overall minimum pass mark of 50% to be deemed responsive. Proposals that do not achieve the minimum pass mark will be declared non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Point-Rated Criteria

(Applicant's proposal to address)

Question 1b: Scope

Demonstrate the scientific and technological basis of how the proposed solution addresses the Additional Outcomes (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice. If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, text entered in this section will not be considered.

If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, Applicants will receive 10 points.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the solution will address any of the Additional Outcomes. 0 points
  2. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 3 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 6 points
  4. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address all (100%) of the Additional Outcomes. 10 points
Question 4: Phase 1 Science and Technology (S&T) Risks

Describe potential scientific and/or technological risks to the successful development of the proof of feasibility and how they will be mitigated in Phase 1.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant has sufficiently considered the risks and defined associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
Question 5: Phase 1 Project Plan

Demonstrate a feasible Phase 1 project plan by completing the table.

  • Indicate if any milestones and activities will be completed concurrently
  • Indicate the estimated exit TRL at the completion of Phase 1. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Electronic Submission Form)
Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate a feasible project plan for Phase 1 and/or the project plan exceeds the maximum duration indicated in the Challenge Notice. 0 points
  2. Project plan for Phase 1 is conceivably feasible but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates a feasible project plan for Phase 1. 20 points
Question 6: Phase 1 Project Risks

Describe potential project risks to the successful development of the proof of feasibility and how they will be mitigated in Phase 1.

Applicants should address the following risks, as applicable:

  • Human Resources
  • Financial
  • Project Management
  • Intellectual Property
  • Other project-related risks

Note to Applicants: S&T risks should not be included in this section. Question 4 addresses S&T risks.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant has sufficiently considered the risks and defined associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
Question 7: Phase 1 Implementation Team

Demonstrate how the project implementation team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the project plan for Phase 1 by completing the table. A member of the implementation team can have more than one role.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points
  2. Information is provided but there are minor gaps in required management and/or technological skill sets and/or experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 10 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 20 points
Question 8: Inclusivity

If your business were to receive funding from Innovative Solutions Canada, describe what actions (e.g., recruitment strategy, internships, co-op placements, etc.) might be taken in Phase 1 to support the participation of under-represented groups (e.g., women, youth, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, visible minorities) in the research and development of the proposed solution. Each Applicant in their response to this question must focus only on describing relevant programs, policies, or initiatives that it currently has in place or would put in place to support the R&D effort in Phase 1.

Note: Do not provide any personal information of individuals employed by your company or that of your subcontractors in the response.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that would be taken to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups. 0 points
  2. A description and concrete examples of actions to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups provided.5 points
Question 9: Phase 1 Financial Proposal

Demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan by completing the table.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient information provided and/or information provided significantly lack credibility. Does not demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points
  2. Information is provided but some costs lack credibility and/or are unclear for the Phase 1 project plan. 7.5 points
  3. Information provided contains credible elements to clearly demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan. 15 points
Question 10: Phase 1 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight

Describe the financial controls, tracking and oversight that will be used to manage the public funds throughout Phase 1. Applicants should indicate if an individual or firm will be managing the public funds and provide their credentials and/or relevant experience.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant's ability to manage public funds in Phase 1. 0 points
  2. Information provided is vague and/or contains gaps. The Applicant has some controls, tracking and/or oversight in place to manage the public funds in Phase 1. 5 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant has strong financial controls, tracking and oversight to manage public funds in Phase 1. 10 points
Question 11: Phase 2 Overview

Demonstrate a realistic overview for the prototype development plan if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Responses should include:

  • key tasks
  • estimated cost for materials
  • human resources
  • project risks and mitigation strategies

Note: A more detailed proposal will be requested if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant has contemplated a realistic overview for the Phase 2 prototype development. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates a conceivably realistic overview for Phase 2 prototype development, however there are gaps and/or the strategy is vague. 6 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant has a clear and realistic overview. 12 points
Question 12: Commercialization Approach

Demonstrate a realistic overall commercialization approach/business model that can successfully take the technology/service to market, and how the technology/service will help you develop and sell other products.

Responses should include:

  • Target markets (excluding Government of Canada)
  • Non-ISC funding sources
  • Transition to a commercially-ready product or service
  • Any other indicators of commercial potential and commercial feasibility

Note: A more detailed proposal will be requested if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential. 0 points
  2. Some information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential, however there are gaps in the commercialization approach. 6 points
  3. A realistic commercialization approach is provided that demonstrates that the proposed solution has commercial potential. 12 points
Question 13: Resulting Benefits to Canada

Describe the benefits that could result from the commercialization of the proposed solution. Applicants should consider the potential benefits using the following three categories and provide justification for each claim:

  • Innovation Benefits: Expected contribution towards the enhancement or development of new industrial or technological innovations within your firm. Responses could include: potential spillover benefits, creation of intellectual property, impact on productivity of the new technology, etc.
  • Economic Benefits: Forecasted impact on the growth of Canadian firms, clusters and supply chains, as well as its expected benefits for Canada's workforce. Responses could include: number of jobs created, number of high-paying jobs, investment in Canada's economy, etc.
  • Public Benefits: Expected contribution to the broader public to the degree that the solution is expected to generate social, environmental, health, security or other benefits to Canada. Responses could include: solution-related environmental benefits, solution-related accessibility benefits, and solution-related impact on Indigenous communities.
Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Innovation Benefits

    Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points

    Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1 point

    Benefit is significant and well justified. 2 points

  2. Economic Benefits

    Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points

    Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1 point

    Benefit is significant and well justified. 2 points

  3. Public Benefits.

    Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points

    Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1 point

    Benefit is significant and well justified. 2 points

Questions and answers

All incoming questions regarding this specific challenge should be addressed to solutions@canada.ca.

All enquiries must be submitted in writing no later than ten calendar days before the Challenge Notice closing date. Enquiries received after that time may not be answered.

You can also consult the Frequently asked questions about the Innovative Solutions Canada Program.

glossary is also available.