Canadian midstream battery materials innovation challenge

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

The National Research Council (NRC) is seeking the best-in-class Canadian lithium-based battery materials for electric vehicle (EV) and energy storage system (ESS) applications, leveraging the Canadian materials supply chain, in line with Canada's Critical Minerals Strategy.

Challenge sponsor:
National Research Council (NRC)

Funding mechanism:
Grant

Opening date:
November 5, 2024

Closing date:
December 17, 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 open to receive proposals in both Challenge Stream entries, Phase 1 (Proof of Feasibility) and Phase 2 (Prototype Development):
- If the solution proposed for this challenge is between 1 and 4 on the technology readiness level (TRL) scale, please submit a Phase 1 proposal.
- If the solution proposed for this challenge is between 5 and 9 on the technology readiness level (TRL) scale, please submit a Phase 2 proposal.
- Please note that applicants can only apply to one Challenge Stream entry point. Proposals will only be considered for the phase selected.
We recently made changes to the Challenge Stream, we have outlined the new parameters.
Read through the official Grant Instructions and Procedures document.

Challenge

Problem statement

The transition to a sustainable energy future is critically dependent on the development of advanced energy storage solutions. Lithium-ion batteries are at the forefront of this transition, playing a pivotal role in both ESS for micro-grids and EVs. However, the current supply chain for battery materials is heavily reliant on international sources, which poses risks to supply security and sustainability.

Canada, with its rich reserves of critical minerals and a strong commitment to environmental stewardship, is uniquely positioned to develop a domestic supply chain for lithium-ion battery materials. This challenge aims to leverage Canada's critical minerals to support the development of new battery materials that are not only high-performing but also environmentally sustainable and economically viable. By fostering collaboration and providing potential access to research expertise, the NRC aims to support the development of a robust Canadian battery materials industry that can compete on a global scale.

The NRC is sponsoring a challenge to develop new cutting-edge Canadian lithium-based battery materials that feature increased Canadian content value and focuses on enhanced performance and more environmentally friendly manufacturing processes. A key area of focus is on greener manufacturing processes and the potential use of alternative materials to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

In this challenge, the NRC is seeking Canadian midstream battery materials companies that can demonstrate novel high-performance Lithium-based (not limited to Lithium-ion) cell chemistries that provide clear environmental benefits and improvements over traditional cathode manufacturing methods. These solutions should leverage Canadian precursor supply chain options in alignment with Canada's Critical Minerals Strategy.

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The proposed solution must:

Cycle life: Detail the predicted number of charge-discharge cycles expected before capacity falls below 80%, at either half or full cell, under standard charge and discharge rates and at 25°C:
- Nickel manganese cobalt (NMC)-type materials: >1,500-2,500 cycles.
- Lithium iron phosphate (LFP)-type materials: >3,000-5,000 cycles.
Specific capacity: Demonstrate the chemistry meets or exceeds the specific capacities below:
- NMC-type: >190-200 mAh/g at C/20 and 25°C.
- LFP-type: >150-170 mAh/g at C/20 and 25°C.
Hysteresis: Demonstrate the chemistry meets or exceeds the hysteresis values below:
- NMC-type: <35-45 mV.
- LFP-type: <50-60 mV.
First cycle efficiency: Demonstrate the chemistry meets or exceeds the first cycle efficiency values below:
- NMC-type: First Cycle Efficiency >85%.
- LFP-type: First Cycle Efficiency >90%.
Fade rate: Demonstrate the chemistry meets or exceeds the following fade rates:
- NMC-type: >90-95% capacity retention after 100 cycles.
- LFP-type: >95-98% capacity retention after 100 cycles.
Rate capability: Demonstrate the ability to charge and discharge at high rates (at least 3C / 5C, respectively) without significant loss of capacity, as required for automotive or energy storage systems.
Thermal stability and safety: Demonstrate the thermal stability and safety of high-performance midstream battery material(s) under high-rate charge and discharge conditions.
Cost of manufacturing: Detail the key costs of raw materials and manufacturing processes and explain why the material is promising for high-volume manufacturing.
Environmental impact: Demonstrate any improved environmental benefits and sustainability of the proposed solution(s).
Supply chain alignment with Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy: Detail a plan to increase the use of Canadian critical minerals.
Scalability: Describe or detail the potential for scalability and integration into existing or novel green manufacturing processes.
Commercialization pathway: Provide an outline of the commercialization plan that includes a schedule to bring the battery material to market, the steps involved in scaling production, the required investment capital (including amount and timelines), and establishing agreements with cell manufacturers.

Additional outcomes

The proposed solution should:

Demonstrate that the proposed chemistry is potentially compatible with dry solvent-free electrode coating/manufacturing processes (dry battery electrode methods) and outline any research and development (R&D) that has already been conducted in this space.
Demonstrate that the proposed chemistry is potentially compatible with alternate binding substances (alternatives to polyvinylidene fluoride, PVDF, for example, and/or NMP) to reduce or eliminate the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and outline any R&D that has already been conducted in this space.

Notes:

Submissions are not limited to NMC-type or LFP-type materials; applications are encouraged from companies with different lithium-based chemistries that can meet or exceed the performance criteria stated in the essential, and additional outcomes.
To support evaluation, bidders are encouraged to provide data from the following materials analysis techniques (if used):
1. X-ray diffraction (XRD)
2. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
3. Inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES)
4. Particle size distribution (PSD)
5. Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area analysis
6. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA)
7. Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS)
8. Cyclic voltammetry (CV)
9. Battery cycling/precision coulometry

Background and context

The global shift to sustainable energy is driving unprecedented demand for advanced energy storage, particularly lithium-ion batteries, which are crucial for EVs and ESS. As the world transitions to a low-carbon economy, the need for high-performance, sustainable battery materials is critical.

The lithium-ion battery market has skyrocketed from $1.5 billion in 2000 to over $40 billion^{Footnote 1} in 2020, with projections exceeding $100-150 billion by 2030. The number of electric cars surpassed 10 million in 2020, a 43% increase from the previous year. These batteries are essential for reducing carbon emissions, especially in transportation, which accounts for nearly 25% of global CO2 emissions.

Energy storage systems are vital for integrating renewable energy sources into the grid. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates global energy storage capacity must increase 40-fold by 2050 to meet the Paris Agreement targets. Lithium-ion batteries, with their high energy density and declining costs, are central to this expansion.

Canada, with its abundant critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and graphite, is uniquely positioned to meet these challenges. The Canadian government has committed over $10 billion since 2020^{Footnote 2} to support the domestic battery supply chain, including investments in mining, processing, and recycling. Recent partnerships between Canadian firms and global EV manufacturers further bolster this effort.

However, the current supply chain relies heavily on international sources, posing risks to supply security. Recent global supply chain disruptions underscore the urgent need for a robust domestic supply chain to ensure stability and sustainability.

The NRC aims to bridge gaps in the midstream battery supply chain by fostering innovation among Canadian companies. This challenge seeks to leverage Canada's critical minerals to develop high-performance, sustainable battery materials, providing a competitive advantage in the ESS and EV sectors.

This challenge is open to Canadian midstream battery materials companies that demonstrate high-performance cell chemistry using Canadian precursor supply chain options. If immediate access to Canadian materials is not feasible, companies must present a plan to increase their use as production scales.

By launching this challenge, the NRC aims to catalyze the development of battery materials that are high-performing, sustainable, and economically viable. This initiative aligns with Canada's goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting clean technology, and ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of critical minerals

Maximum grant value and travel

Multiple grants could result from this Challenge.

Phase 1

Maximum funding: $200,000.00 CAD
Project duration: Up to 6 months
Estimated number of grants: 3

Phase 2

Maximum funding: $1,500,000.00 CAD
Project duration: Up to 24 months
Estimated number of grants: 1

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 based on factors such as evaluation results, departmental priorities, and availability of funds. The Government of Canada reserves the right to make partial awards and to negotiate project scope changes.

Travel

No travel is anticipated in Phase 1.

Kick-off meeting

All communication will take place by telephone or videoconference.

Progress review meeting(s)

Any progress review meetings will be conducted by telephone or videoconference.

Final review meeting

All communication will take place by telephone or videoconference.

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

Phase 1

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. The Applicant (offeror) may not add information to their submission at a later time.

Part 1: Phase 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 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 innovation 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.

The proposal does not clearly demonstrate how the proposed solution addresses all Essential Outcomes identified in the challenge.

The proposed solution is poorly described and does not permit concrete analysis.

There is little to no scientific and/or technological evidence that the proposed solution is likely to meet all Essential Outcomes.

Question 2: 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 bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.

This section should 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 testing, 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 1 to 4 (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 (offeror) has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 1 to 4 (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 5 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^{Footnote *}, 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 1 - 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 1 Science and Technology (S&T) Risks

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

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 1 Project Risks

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

Applicants (offerors) should address the following risks:

Human Resources
Financial
Project Management
Intellectual Property
Supply chain issues

Note: 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 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 6: Phase 1 Project Plan

Demonstrate a Proof of feasibility Phase 1 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 1. (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 1 and/or the project plan exceeds the maximum duration indicated in the Challenge Notice. 0 points
Information is feasible for the Phase 1 project plan but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
Information provided demonstrates a feasible project plan for Phase 1. 20 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.

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 1 project plan. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that 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 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

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 1 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 individuals employed by your company or that of your subcontractors in the response.

Question 8: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that are in place or 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. A registered Indigenous Businesses will receive the maximum score for Question 8: Inclusivity. 20 points

Question 9: Phase 1 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight

Describe the financial controls, tracking and oversight that will be used to manage the funds throughout Phase 1. 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 1. 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 1. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has financial controls, tracking and oversight to manage funds in Phase 1. 10 points

Question 10: Phase 2 Overview

Demonstrate an 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 project plan may be requested if selected for consideration to participate in Phase 2.

Question 10: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has contemplated an overview for the Phase 2 prototype development. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates an overview for Phase 2 prototype development, however it is vague and/or contains gaps. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has a defined overview for the Phase 2 prototype development. 10 points

Phase 2

Part 1: Phase 2 - Mandatory Criteria

Mandatory Criteria

(Applicant's proposal must address)

Question 1 a: Phase 2 Scope

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.

The proposal does not clearly demonstrate how the proposed solution addresses all Essential Outcomes identified in the challenge.

The proposed solution is poorly described and does not permit concrete analysis.

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 invention^{Footnote *}, 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

Point-Rated Criteria

(Applicant's proposal to address)

Question 1b: Scope

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.

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

The problem statement mentions reducing both reducing PFAS and environmentally friendly manufacturing of cathode materials. Are proposals exclusively limited to projects that address these specific issues? Or is ISED more broadly interested in green battery development.

NRC is interested in proposals that address concerns related to PFAS-containing materials in cathode binders, as well as innovative manufacturing techniques such as dry cathode pressing or greener cathode manufacturing processes. However, this is not mandatory. Primarily, NRC is looking for improved, higher performance, or greener midstream cathode materials. There is less emphasis however, for example, in advanced cathode-anode pairings, electrolytes, separator technologies, or other green battery cell manufacturing improvements. Albeit, this is primarily a Canadian midstream cathode materials ‘chemistry’ challenge. .

The essential (mandatory) outcomes state 1500-2500 cycles with NMC materials, but this is not currently possible when employing next generation anodes (Si, Li etc.). Furthermore, cycling a cell for that many cycles could take more than 1 year of cycling time. Are the mandatory outcome numbers set in stone regardless of the cell chemistry?

The 1500-2500 cycle range was set as a minimum mandatory requirement primarily for conventional NMC Li-Ion cells. If a proponent wishes to propose a high-performance cathode with a novel anode pairing (perhaps containing Si or other materials), it will be assessed in comparison to all other proposals received. It is recommended that the applicant clearly state the maximum number of cycles achieved so far through cycling either full or half-cell. If the applicant has estimates based on UHPC or accelerated methods, that information would also be useful. The numbers are not entirely set in stone if the applicant can demonstrate other clear performance benefits, such as improved energy density. Albeit, this is primarily a Canadian midstream cathode materials ‘chemistry’ challenge.

For Phase 1, what are the expectations for the proof-of-feasibility report? For mature cathode chemistries such as LFP or NMC, the performance and cell characteristics are well-defined, would you still want experimental results? The other scenario is to complete an engineering design and perform costing and safety analyses.

The NRC is seeking Canada's highest-performing cathode chemistries for lithium-ion (or even lithium-based) cells. We are less interested in mature cathode chemistries unless the bidder can demonstrate significant advancements in one or more of the following areas:

1. High Cell Performance: The proposed solution must showcase exceptionally high cell performance compared to existing mature chemistries, with a demonstrable high probability of successful future commercialization. This would best be demonstrated by data comparing the bidder's cathode chemistry against leading commercially available cathode chemistries at the coin or full-cell level.

2. Greener Manufacturing Processes: Proposals should ideally offer a combined high-performance cathode chemistry with considerably greener manufacturing process enhancements, for example, alternatives to conventional wet reactor production methods.

This challenge is focused on identifying the highest performance, greenest, or most novel high-potential Canadian-developed cathode chemistries that offer realistic probabilities of successful high-volume commercialization, ideally in Canada with elements of a Canadian supply chain (as far as possible). Additionally, the NRC is interested in proposals from bidders who may have developed approaches to reduce or eliminate PFAS or solvents from the cathode binder mix, or even energy-saving approaches, such as the modification of high-performance cathode chemistries to be suitable for solvent-free foil coating processes. Phase 1 proposals are intended to be at lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRL1-4), focusing on more novel and advanced projects with high degrees of technical risk. Phase 2 proposals are for projects between TRL 5 and 9, which might imply new high-performance cathode chemistries and/or cathode production technologies that have been well tested at bench level (coin and/or full-cell level) but now being readied for pilot scale production at the kilogram, or above level.

We would like to clarify whether the development of lithium-ion battery anode materials based on graphite and silicon would also fall in the scope of this funding.

If a proponent wishes to propose a high-performance cathode with a novel anode pairing (such as those containing silicon or other materials), it will be assessed in comparison to all other proposals received. It is recommended that the applicant clearly state the maximum number of cycles achieved so far (for example) through cycling either full or half-cell. If the applicant has estimates based on UHPC or accelerated methods, that information would also be useful. However, please note that this challenge is primarily focused on Canadian midstream novel or higher performance cathode materials 'chemistry'.

All incoming questions regarding this specific challenge should be addressed to solutions@ised-isde.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.