Acoustic Detection/Classification/Localization/Tracking (DCLT) in a harbour environment

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

The Department of National Defense is seeking efficient passive Detection, Classification, Localization, and Tracking (DCLT) algorithms to acoustically track vessels of interest using Defense Research and Development Canada's acoustic sensors subject to different environmental conditions. Innovators will be expected to provide algorithm(s) to be presented via design documentation during Phase 1 and then as updated documentation and demonstrable software in Phase 2.

Challenge sponsor:
Department of National Defense (DND)

Funding mechanism:
Contract

Opening date:
June 26, 2025

Closing date:
August 15, 2025. 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 1 (Proof of Feasibility) of our Challenge Stream. Proposed solutions that fall within technology readiness levels (TRL) 1-4 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

Traditional sonar technology relies on complex and power/memory-intensive processing schemes. Some future sonar systems will be transitioning to underwater, autonomous, battery-powered, and standalone (without cables) systems that will be less capable in terms of power, processing, and storage. Those future systems will be equipped with an array of sensors (multiple sensors of the same type), deployed in a wide range of locations, and used for long-term missions thus being subject to the seasonal variabilities and environmental conditions. An example of such systems can be found in Figure 1 of reference^{Footnote 1} listed below. Those autonomous systems can be deployed as a singleton or as a group, with the latter configuration typically involving a limited amount of data transfer at a low data rate.

This software challenge is meant to explore new approaches that could help develop efficient detection, classification, localization, tracking (DCLT) acoustic data processing solutions that are appropriate for those future autonomous systems.

Applicants (Offerors) qualifying for Phase 1 will receive representative multi-channel acoustic data and non-acoustic data to help develop their proposal. The data will be collected from a busy harbour environment and municipal transit ferries will represent the contacts of interest for the development of DCLT solutions. Candidates qualifying for Phase 2 will receive a larger sample of those datasets. Dataset selection may represent various environmental conditions inclusive of severe weather (heavy rainfalls, strong winds, etc.) and seasonal variations (distinct sound speed profiles). Phase 2 final demonstration will use a new dataset with unusual ferry routes. Successful applicants to Phase 1 of the Challenge will undertake development of a detailed solution concept as a proposal for consideration to progress to Phase 2. Candidates selected to continue to Phase 2 will develop functional solutions for demonstration. Phase 2 will concentrate on solutions that are viable for battery-powered systems with limited computing and communication capabilities.

Acoustic data will originate from two underwater hydrophone (underwater microphone) arrays in a shallow water environment. Non-acoustic data will include sound speed profiles, weather data, orientation data, underwater current data, ferry Global Positioning System (GPS) data, and Automatic Identification System (AIS) data of nearby maritime traffic. All ferries will be equipped with GPS thus providing ground-truth. Reference^{Footnote 2} below provides the various features of the data being provided. A definition for false alarm rate calculations for a multi-static scenario can be found in Reference^{Footnote 3}, Section 3.1. A "false alarm" occurs when a ferry-detection is reported while no ferry is present. The false-alarm rate (FAR) found in^{Footnote 3} is provided as guidance but in general an FAR is computed by reporting the number of false alarms over an observation period (i.e., time). Technical details of the systems collecting data can be found in^{Footnote 4}.

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The proposed solution must:

Rely on acoustic data as the basis of the solution during demonstration(s) and potential implementation. identification system (AIS) data, GPS data or the internet are not to be used.
Acoustically detect when ferry traffic is present while recording detection false alarms.
Acoustically localize ferries that are moving and derive a localization-accuracy metric over their terminal-to-terminal routes.
Have a built-in adaptive/robustness scheme mechanism to accommodate for varying environmental conditions, inclusive of higher ambient noise due to shipping traffic or weather.
Have built-in schemes mechanisms to reduce report its requirements in terms of storage, power, and algorithm training (if the latter is required).

Additional outcomes

The proposed solution should:

Provide increased performance in the detection of ferry traffic to the following progressive specifications:
1. Determine when ferry traffic is present with a 75%, or higher, success rate and 15%, or lower, false-alarm rate; or
2. Determine when ferry traffic is present, with a 85%, or higher, success rate and 10%, or lower, false-alarm rate; or
3. Determine when ferry traffic is present with a 95%, or higher, success rate and a 5%, or lower, false-alarm rate.
Note that more difficult specifications are better aligned with the intended goal.
Provide increased performance in the localization of ferry traffic to the following progressive specifications:
1. localize at least 2-out-of-4 ferries within an accuracy of 400 metres for 25% or more of their overall terminal-to-terminal routes; or
2. localize at least 3-out-of-4 ferries within an accuracy of 200 metres for 50% or more of their overall terminal-to-terminal routes; or
3. localize all ferries within an accuracy of 100 metres for 75% or more of their overall terminal-to-terminal routes
Distinguish ferries from one another.
Detect changes in each ferries' acoustic signatures (transient or steady features) over time.
Discern between ferries and ships aligned along similar bearings (separated by less than 10 degrees).
Provide documented design considerations about how to perform DCLT tasks in a distributed manner, which means that only a limited amount of data can be shared between the acoustic systems in a deployed environment.
Provide additional information on addressing:
1. algorithm computation-and-energy efficiency given the possibility of eventual deployment to a low size, weight, and power (SWAP) device;
2. how much data is required for algorithm training (if any); and
3. what changes would be required to classify and localize another type of vessel based on acoustic signature.

Background and context

Canada's recent Defence policy update "Our North, Strong, and Free" clearly stipulates the importance and urgency of monitoring Canadian Arctic waterways that are becoming increasingly accessible due to climate change. The vast expanse of Canada's North, harsh environmental conditions, and lack of infrastructure all create a significant challenge for subsea surveillance and monitoring on a wide scale. The need for long-term deployment of surveillance solutions in remote regions in this challenging operational context could be partially addressed through the use of autonomous acoustic solutions, both fixed-location and mobile. Any solution operating in Canada's expansive and remote geography would need to carry their own power reserves that must be used judiciously.

Development of innovative capabilities to address the challenging and extremely remote operational environment of the North not only supports Canadian national security priorities but also Canadian obligations as part of NORAD and NATO.

Canada has a strong depth of experience related to the gathering, processing, and analysis of acoustic information and has growing capability regarding autonomous solutions and artificial intelligence. These strengths enable the potential to create solutions to address the significant challenge of monitoring the waterways of the arctic for the national security of Canada and our allies. In addition, development of sovereign capability for these national security challenges could also lead to dual-use solutions that address non-military needs thereby creating broader economic benefit.

Maximum contract value and travel

Multiple contracts could result from this Challenge.

Phase 1

The maximum funding available for any Phase 1 contract resulting from this Challenge is : $250,000.00 CAD excluding applicable taxes, shipping, travel and living expenses, as required.
The maximum duration for any Phase 1 contract resulting from this Challenge is up to 6 months (excluding submission of the final report).
Estimated number of Phase 1 contracts: 2

Phase 2

Note: Only eligible businesses that have successfully completed Phase 1 will be invited to submit a proposal for Phase 2.

The maximum funding available for any Phase 2 contract resulting from this Challenge is : $1,000,000.00 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 12 months (excluding submission of the final report).
Estimated number of Phase 2 contracts: 1

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. 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

No travel anticipated for Phase 1.

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 ^* Or large business with 499 or more 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 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.

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 SVT Challenge – Data format summary link is not working. How can we find the reference information?

Please reference the following information while preparing your application:

**COVE challenge – Data description**
#	Description	Data Features	File Format/Size
1	Acoustic Data	1 dataset per system, 2 systems, 7 channels, 10 ksps, 24-bit per sample, UTC time-stamped (UNIX time), range 0-to-1, units = none	H5 / 82 MB for 5 minutes
2	Orientation Data	1 dataset per system, 2 systems, 3 entries per timestamp, 4 sps, UTC time-stamped (UNIX time), range 0 to +/- 360, units = degrees	CSV / 23 kB for 5 minutes
3	Acoustic Doppler Current Profile	1 dataset per system, 1 system, 1 array entry per timestamp, 2 spm, UTC time-stamped (UNIX time)	H5 / 2.7MB for 24 hours
4	Speed of Sound Profile	1 dataset per system, 1 system, 1 array entry per timestamp, 5sps, UTC time-stamped (UNIX time)	H5 / 192 kB for 24 hours
5	Weather Data	1 dataset per system, 1 system, 22 entries per timestamp, 1 spm UTC time-stamped (UNIX time)	H5 / 353 kB for 24 hours
6	Ferry Location Data	1 dataset per system, 5 systems, 5 entries per timestamp, 1sps, UTC time-stamped (UNIX time)	H5 / 24 MB for 24 hours
7	Automatic Identification System (AIS) Data	1 dataset per system, 1 system, 10 entries per timestamp per ship within range, variable data rate, UTC time-stamped (UNIX time)	H5 / 14 MB for 24 hours

Hydrophone three-dimensional position on the rigid frame:

Channel #	X Position (m)	Y Position (m)
1	0	0
2	0.1568	0.272
3	0.1568	-0.272
4	0.3135	0
5	-0.3135	0
6	-0.1568	0.272
7	0.1568	-0.272

Will the solicitation closing date be extended?

Yes. The solicitation date is extended to August 15, 2025 at 14:00 EDT.

Please refer to the tender notice for this specific challenge, Tender Notice | CanadaBuys

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.