The Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are seeking innovative research and development (R&D) solutions to provide a flat satellite (flatsat) platform for cybersecurity experimentations.
Challenge sponsor:
Department of National Defense (DND)
Funding mechanism:
Contract
Opening date:
June 4, 2026
Closing date:
July 2, 2026, 14:00 Eastern time
Here are a few things you need to know before you get started on your application to this challenge:
- This challenge is only open to receive proposals for Phase 2 (prototype development) of the Challenge Stream
- Proposed solutions that fall within technology readiness level (TRL) 5 and 9 can be submitted to this challenge
- We recently made changes to the Challenge Stream, we have outlined the new parameters
- Read through the official solicitation documents
- To read the tender notice for this specific challenge, refer to Tender Notice | CanadaBuys
Challenge
Problem statement
Modern defence activities require the ability to collect, synthesize, and distribute large volumes of data from diverse sources to ensure domain awareness and effective command and control. Low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellations are envisioned to fulfill these requirements by enabling hybrid space networks (HSN) with high throughput, low latency, and global coverage. The HSN must be responsive across layers to transport data through different network segments and meet dynamic traffic demands. Of particular importance is HSN architectural robustness and resilience under dynamic traffic load and segment failure conditions.
This challenge focuses on the creation of a laboratory-based flatsat platform—a ground-based satellite designed to integrate critical satellite subsystems and enable controlled cybersecurity experimentation. The goal is to support the design, testing, and validation of secure satellite software and hardware architectures and cyber defense mechanisms. To support the widest range of cybersecurity experimentation, the flatsat should integrate as many and type-diverse payloads as possible, as opposed to common satellites which carry only one or two payloads (communication, remote observation, navigation, scientific measurements, weather and meteorology, any other type-specific payload or combination thereof).
Desired outcomes and considerations
Essential (mandatory) outcomes
The proposed solution must:
- Utilize subsystems that replicate the full and proven functionality of those used in operational satellites. At a minimum, the subsystems must include at least two (2) payloads, one payload being communications that is accessible via a wired interface
- Measure no more than 2.5m x 2.5m of laboratory floor space
- Feature a hardware layout that allows for a single technician plug and play connection of cyber instrumentation, such as oscilloscopes or other signal analyzers, and testing
- Include a telemetry, tracking, and command (TT&C) module accessible via a wired interface
- Implement a modular, reconfigurable and reprogrammable software architecture that supports software/firmware patching and hardware component replacement
- Provide administrative capabilities for health monitoring, bus input/output, configuration, and secure software updates via a wired interface
- Explore security architecture concepts for hardening HSNs (e.g., trust models, segmentation approaches, resilient network security design, secure cross-segment integration concepts)
- Provide remote-access environment to support cybersecurity competitions and training exercises (e.g., controlled user access, scenario orchestration, safe experimentation, instrumented telemetry for learning and validation)
Additional outcomes
The proposed solution should:
- Develop and demonstrate novel cybersecurity protection mechanisms
- Utilize more than two (2) payloads, with each additional payload adding to the innovation and technical merit of the proposal by increasing realism and expanding the cybersecurity validation space
Background and context
The DND and the CAF are seeking innovative R&D solutions with the goal of advancing future HSNs to provide a secure and resilient information eco-system. As these HSNs will integrate communications, sensing, and command and control capabilities, the end-to-end cybersecurity will be key in providing secure operations and information flows to, from and between space-based and ground-based nodes.
Cybersecurity necessitates hands-on experimentation done on the real systems. However, for operational military space systems, it is rarely possible to perform hands-on cyber experiments because there is usually only one instance of each system and it is impossible to put them offline for the time of the experimentation. The creation of a laboratory-based flatsat platform designed for cybersecurity closes that gap.
Maximum value and travel
Multiple contracts could result from this Challenge.
Phase 2
- The maximum funding available for any Phase 2 contract resulting from this Challenge is : $2,000,000.00 CAD excluding applicable taxes, shipping, travel and living expenses, as required
- The maximum duration for any Phase 2 contract resulting from this Challenge is up to 20 months (excluding submission of the final report)
- Estimated number of Phase 2 contracts: 2
This disclosure is made in good faith and does not commit Canada to award any contract for the total approximate funding. Final decisions on the number of 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.
Note: Selected companies are eligible to receive one contract per phase per challenge.
Travel
Travel anticipated to DRDC Valcartier for initial kickoff, at the mid-project and at the end for delivery and training.
Eligibility
Solution proposals can be submitted by a business that meets all of the following criteria:
- for profit
- incorporated in Canada (federally or provincially)
- small and medium sized business with 499 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) employees**
- 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 official source of the Evaluation Criteria for this challenge is the Government Electronic Tendering System (CanadaBuys).
In the event of a discrepancy between the information below and the information published on CanadaBuys, CanadaBuys will take precedence.
Phase 2
The Applicant (offeror) must complete the Challenge Stream 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: Phase 2 - 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: Phase 2 Scope
Describe the proposed innovation 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 Outcomes in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice.
Question 1 a: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)
Pass
The proposed solution is within the scope for the challenge, and clearly addresses all Essential Outcomes identified in the Challenge.
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 identified 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 all Essential Outcomes.
Question 2: Proof of Feasibility and Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
- Indicate the current TRL of the proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)
- Describe the research and development activities that have taken place to prove the solution's feasibility and bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.
This section must include :- A description of the method of research;
- The solution objectives and an analysis of the results proving the feasibility of the solution;
- Data proving the solution's feasibility;
- Evidence to demonstrate the highest level of validation conducted (e.g., activities such as paper studies, analytic studies, components that are not yet integrated or representative, integration of "ad hoc" hardware in the laboratory, laboratory test, simulated environment, field testing, debugging, etc.);
- The type of environment(s) in which this was done and by whom, including title.
Question 2: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)
Pass:
The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution is currently between TRL 5 to 9 (inclusive), and provided justification by explaining the research and development (R&D) that has taken place to bring the solution to the stated TRL, proving the solution's feasibility.
and
The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated the research and development activities that have taken place to prove the solution's feasibility and bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.
Fail:
The Applicant (offeror) has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 5 to 9 (inclusive) including one or more of the following:
- There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment and/or to prove the solution's feasibility.
- The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research.
- The solution is demonstrated at TRL 4 or lower.
- The solution is demonstrated at higher than TRL 9.
- 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 and only provides a vague description and overview of the R&D completed.
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.
Question 3a: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)
Pass:
The proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation.
Fail:
- The proposed solution does not meet any of the ISC definitions of innovation
or
- 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, the proposal must 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.
Question 3b: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory Criteria – Pass/Fail + Points)
0 points/Fail:
- The Applicant (offeror) 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 (offeror) 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 (offeror) 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 (offeror) 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 (offeror) 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 (offeror) 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: Phase 2 - Point-Rated Criteria
Proposals must meet the overall minimum pass mark of 65 of 130 possible total points (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 (offerors) will receive 10 points.
Question 1b: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
- Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the solution will address any of the Additional Outcomes. 0 points
- Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 3 points
- Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 6 points
- Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address all (100%) of the Additional Outcomes. 10 points
Question 4: Phase 2 Science and Technology Risks
Identify potential scientific and/or technological risks to the prototype development and describe how they will be mitigated in Phase 2.
Question 4: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
- Information is insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies or information provided contains significant gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 0 points
- Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
- Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified the potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
Question 5: Phase 2 Project Risks
Identify potential project risks to the prototype development and describe how they will be mitigated in Phase 2.
Applicants (offerors) should address the following risks:
- Human Resources
- Financial
- Project Management
- Intellectual Property
- Material availability
- Supply chain issues
Note to Applicants: S&T risks should not be included in this section. Question 4 addresses S&T risks.
Question 5: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
- Information is insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies or information provided contains significant gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 0 points
- Information provided demonstrates that the Applicants (offerors) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
- Information provided demonstrates that the Applicants (offerors) has identified the potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
Question 6: Phase 2 Project Plan
Demonstrate a feasible Phase 2 project plan by completing the table in the Proposal Submission Form.
- Indicate if any milestones and activities will be completed concurrently;
- Indicate the estimated exit TRL at the completion of Phase 2. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)
Question 6: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
- Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate a feasible project plan for Phase 2 and/or the project plan exceeds the maximum duration indicated in the Challenge Notice. 0 points
- Information is feasible for the Phase 2 project plan but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
- information provided demonstrates a feasible project plan for Phase 2. 20 points
Question 7: Phase 2 Implementation Team
Demonstrate how your project implementation team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the project plan for Phase 2 by completing the table provided.
Question 7: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
- 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 2 project plan. 0 points
- Information is provided but there are minor gaps in required management and/or technological skill sets and/or experience to deliver the Phase 2 project plan. 10 points
- Information provided clearly demonstrates that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 2 project plan. 20 points
Question 8: Inclusivity
A key objective of the Innovative Solutions Canada program is to increase the participation of under-represented groups in the research and development of the proposed solution.
Applicants (offerors) should describe the policies, strategies, and/or procedures (e.g. recruitment strategy, internships, co-op placements, or other initiatives) that they currently have in place or would put in place to support the R&D effort in Phase 2 including an overview of the group(s); and which specific under-represented groups (women, youth, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, visible minorities, 2SLGBTQI+ community, etc.).
Note: Do not provide any personal information of senior officials, individuals employed by your company or that of your subcontractors in the response below.
Question 8: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
- No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that would be taken to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups. 0 points
- A description and concrete examples of actions to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups provided. 10 points
- If the Applicant (offeror) is registered on the Indigenous Business Directory, Modern Treaty or Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (CLCA) business list/directory, please provide this information as part of this criterion as registered Indigenous Businesses will receive the maximum score for Question 8: Inclusivity.20 points
Question 9: Phase 2 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight
Describe the financial controls, tracking and oversight that will be used to manage the funds throughout Phase 2. Applicants (offerors) should indicate if an individual or firm will be managing the funds and provide their credentials and/or relevant experience.
A good financial control in R&D refers to effective management and oversight of financial resources allocated to R&D activities, with the goal of maximising the return on investment and ensuring funds are used efficiently and effectively.
For example, this section could include (but not limited to):
- Establishing clear budgets and financial plan
- Regular monitoring
- Developing systems for tracking and recording costs (salaries, equipment and supplies, overhead expenses, etc.)
- Providing accurate and timely financial reports (including actual and projected costs) to stakeholders such as management, funders or researchers
- Ensuring compliance with relevant financial regulations, policies and procedures
Question 9: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
- Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant's ability to manage funds in Phase 2. 0 points
- Information provided is vague and/or contains gaps. The Applicant (offeror) has some financial controls, tracking and/or oversight in place to manage the funds in Phase 2. 5 points
- Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has financial controls, tracking and oversight to manage funds in Phase 2. 10 points
Question 10: Commercialization Strategy
Explain your plan to commercialize the solution after Phase 2 into the commercial marketplace and/or ISC's Pathway to commercialization.
Applicants (offerors) should address the following:
- Any previous experience and record in commercialization (e.g., sales; marketing; IP protection; demographic/target market analysis; manufacturing; technology commercialization);
- Additional funding commitments from private and/or non-ISC funding sources;
- Previous investments secured outside of the ISC program.
Note: Information on the Innovative Solutions Canada Pathway to commercialization process can be found on the program's website.
Question 10: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
- Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has planned a realistic strategy for commercialization. 0 points
- Information provided demonstrates a conceivably realistic strategy for commercialization, however there are gaps and/or elements of the strategy is vague. 5 points
- Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has a clear, comprehensive and realistic strategy. 10 points
Questions and answers
All incoming questions regarding this specific challenge should be addressed to SIC-ISC@pwgsc.gc.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.
A glossary is also available.