Fabrication system for atom-scale quantum devices

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) is seeking innovations that can advance the creation of a new generation of atom-scale quantum circuits that can help improve departments' existing quantum capacities.

Challenge sponsor:
Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED)

Funding mechanism:
Contract

Opening date:
February 15, 2023

Closing date:
March 29, 2023, 14:00 Eastern Time

Please refer to the tender notice for this challenge on CanadaBuys.

Challenge

Problem statement

Quantum technologies are at the cutting edge of science and innovation, both in Canada and worldwide. There is development and testing on atom-scale circuits for quantum devices that relies on the ability to create single atom quantum dots and spin centers accurately at specific atomic sites on a silicon surface. These circuits will have applications in ultra-low power logic circuits, metrological standards and quantum sensors. In order for the circuits to be printed at the atomic level with precision, accuracy and speed, a new generation of atom-scale fabrication system is required. The lack of appropriate fabrication instrumentation is currently limiting the rate of development of atomic lithography and science and technologies at the atom scale.

This challenge aims to create an instrument for atomically precise manufacturing, consisting of a hybrid fabrication tool and microscope developed around a linear, open loop scanner, capable of building quantum circuit components with minimal error and without the strict limitations of currently available equipment. This instrument, together with other capabilities in the system for testing and packaging, will also allow for atomic circuit prototypes to be shipped to other partners.

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The proposed solution must:

Demonstrate atom resolving images of silicon (100) in both Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM) and Qplus Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM).
Provide a linear scanner operating in open loop.
Provide high bandwidth coax cabling to probe and sample (GHz range).
Operate at ~4 K temperature for sample and scanner.
Demonstrate a stable, measurable tunnel current at least as low as 1 pA.
Be prepared as an ultrahigh vacuum tool.
Have separate vacuum systems, all combined: 1) the main tool for atomic fabrication,2) a location for silicon preparation, 3) a location for tip fabrication.
Achieve ultrahigh vacuum ~ 1e-10Torr for all vacuum systems.

Additional outcomes

The proposed solution should:

Have no measurable creep and hysteresis under normal scanning speeds (~100 nm/s) and over the full range of motion.
Provide creep-and hysteresis-free motion of the scanner from roomtemperature to 4 K.
The scanner should be capable of at least 0.1 Å lateral resolution and 0.01 Å vertical resolution.
Maintain constant height imaging with little thermal drift (<0.5 nm/hr).
Machine with 500 MHz capable wiring to sample and tip.
Machine with at least 4 additional sample wires.
Achieve 2 μm XY scan range for fine scanner.
Achieve 200 nm Z range for the fine scanner.
Achieve XYZ coarse motor with ~5-10 mm motion for each axis.
Achieve a hold time of greater than 60 hours or more
Operate at Ultimate pressures below 10e-10 Torr.
Testing station capable of connecting to the 4 sample contacts.
Encapsulation station in UHV.
Have vacuum system location for sample testing and encapsulation/packaging after fabrication.

Background and context

Atom scale lithography is highly compromised with today's instruments. This is because the scanners used to guide the lithography probe are made from piezoelectric material that have inherent nonlinearities. This means that for an applied voltage, the exact location of the probe will have errors on the scale of the lithography desired. These errors are manifested through hysteretic motion, where scanning left/right or up/down will not trace the same profile or through creep, where the scanner will continue to move after the voltage sweep has been stopped. Both of these errors create challenges in addressing exact positions for atom scale lithography. Closed loop scanners have been developed to try to solve these issues but also have limitations in precision and speed not found in open loop scanners.

Some scanning errors can be partially alleviated in some instances by moving the scanner in non optimal ways; such as slower than desired and over very narrow ranges. Despite this, lithographic errors do occur while preparing atom scale circuits, requiring time consuming error correction methods. As well, slow indexing procedures and registration of the scanner are also continually required in order to know the probe's position and minimize positional errors during printing, especially of complex patterns over large areas.

These issues described cause many challenges for printing complicated atom scale patterns for testing and development, that could be solved by utilizing a better and linear scanner. Linear piezo materials do exist, however, the functional scanning range is severely limited and does not allow for complex circuits to be created because of the limiting scanning range. Increasing the scanning range while maintaining the ideal creep and hysteretic properties of the material would solve this issue and greatly open the door to improved atom scale lithography.

Integration of the linear scanner within complete manufacturing and testing system will further propel atom scale development at NRC. Other opportunities for linear and precise nanopositioning are also arising in other high technology systems including scanning electron microscopes, transmission electron microscopes, electron beam lithography and many other nano- and micro-fabrication instruments that rely on piezo motion for positioning. These capabilities will draw new partners and opportunities to NRC. The timing to receive the tool aligns with current Quantum Sensing Program projects as those projects transition to higher TRL levels with requirements of improved fabrication, testing, and demonstrations.

Maximum contract value and travel

Multiple contracts could result from this Challenge.

Funding of up to $150,000.00 CAD for up to 6 months could be available for any Phase 1 contract resulting from this Challenge.

Estimated number of Phase 1 contract to be awarded: TBD

Funding of up to $1,000,000.00 CAD for up to 24 months could be available for any Phase 2 contract resulting from this Challenge. Only eligible businesses that received Phase 1 funding could be considered for Phase 2.

Estimated number of Phase 2 contracts to be awarded: TBD

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 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.

Travel:

No traveling will be required in Phase 1.

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) employees^{Footnote **}
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 Canada^{Footnote **}
50% or more of its FTE employees have Canada as their ordinary place of work^{Footnote **}
50% or more of its senior executives (Vice President and above) have Canada as their principal residence^{Footnote **}

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.

The Bidder 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

(Bidder'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 Outcomes (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice.

Evaluation Schema (Mandatory — Pass/Fail)

Pass

The Bidder's proposed solution is clearly articulated, within the scope for the challenge and addresses all Essential 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 Bidder 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 Bidder 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 invention*, 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.

* An "invention" is defined for the purposes of ISC as: "A manufacturing design or any other new and useful improvement that is new or novel, that is, not commonly known or not an obvious derivative of an existing way of doing things."

Evaluation Schema (Mandatory — Pass/Fail)

Pass

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

Fail

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

Bidder has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed solution meets any of the ISC definitions of innovation; OR
Bidder 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 Bidder 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 Bidder 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 Bidder 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 Bidder 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 Bidder 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 Bidder 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

(Bidder'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, Bidders will receive 10 points.

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 clearly demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 3 points
Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 6 points
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)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Bidder has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Bidder has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Bidder 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)

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
Project plan for Phase 1 is conceivably feasible but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
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.

Bidders should address the following risks, as applicable:

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

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

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Bidder has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Bidder has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Bidder 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)

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
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
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 Bidder 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)

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. 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)

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
Information is provided but some costs lack credibility and/or are unclear for the Phase 1 project plan. 7.5 points
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. Bidders 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)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Bidder's ability to manage public funds in Phase 1. 0 points
Information provided is vague and/or contains gaps. The Bidder has some controls, tracking and/or oversight in place to manage the public funds in Phase 1. 5 points
Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Bidder 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)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Bidder has contemplated a realistic overview for the Phase 2 prototype development. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates a conceivably realistic overview for Phase 2 prototype development, however there are gaps and/or the strategy is vague. 6 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Bidder 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 or the Testing Stream.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential. 0 points
Some information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential, however there are gaps in the commercialization approach. 6 points
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. Bidders 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)

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
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
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

Please refer to the tender notice for this challenge on CanadaBuys.

All incoming questions regarding this specific challenge should be addressed to SIC-ISC@pwgsc.gc.ca

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

A glossary is also available.