Virtual and physical training system for semi-autonomous teleoperated manipulators

The National Research Council (NRC) is seeking the development of an integrated virtual and physical training system that combines human-in-the-loop control and machine learning to enable semi-autonomous robotic manipulators to perform contact-based tasks in unstructured environments.

Challenge sponsor:
The National Research Council (NRC)

Funding mechanism:
Grant

Opening date:
May 21, 2026

Closing date:
June 18, 2026, 14:00 Eastern time

Here are a few things you need to know before you get started on your application to this challenge:

  1. This challenge is open to receive proposals in Phase 2 (Prototype Development) of the Challenge Stream
  2. We recently made changes to the Challenge Stream, we have outlined the new parameters.
  3. Read through the official Grant Instructions and Procedures document.
  4. Post-evaluation proposal selection will include the following priority: firms with a demonstrated track record of building robotic training platforms for clients.
 

Challenge
 

Problem statement

There is presently a lack of integrated online learning capabilities for robotic systems that can seamlessly bridge virtual simulation and physical operation with human inputs to enable efficient adaptive manipulation in unstructured, contact-rich environments. Typical applications that can benefit from these systems include inspection, maintenance and repair of utility infrastructures (e.g. power lines, dams, wind turbine blades) search and rescue, medical interventions and Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) operations.

Using a combination of pre-programmed behaviors and human inputs via a force-enabled input device, a virtual robot is to interact dynamically with an environment consisting of a scene and objects using a gripper or specialized tools, while providing feedback to the operator using visual and kinesthetic/haptic feedback via the input device. Virtual scene and objects can be created using a CAD environment or from digitized real-world elements. The system is to allow the development and implementation of online machine learning algorithms via feedback from virtual sensors (visual, robot encoders, force sensors, input device, etc.). Once tasks have been prototyped in the virtual environment, further training and validation of the learned behaviors and trajectories is to be carried out using the same operator interface and previously used virtual environment coupled to a hardware manipulator in a physical environment, thereby providing force information and sensor feedback resulting from physical interaction. This approach aims at providing realistic feedback related to systems dynamics and contact, as well as providing an environment where system training can be carried out in an online, ongoing manner during human interaction.

The system is expected to have a minimum Technical Readiness Level of 5, more specifically, a system capable of prototyping and testing in a laboratory environment. While the resulting components are not expected to be fully field deployable, elements related to successful field deployment such as compacity, ruggedness, reliability, stiffness vs weight, power, should be considered in designing the solution.

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The proposed solution must:

  • Provide an integrated hardware and 3-D graphical virtual environment with dynamic capabilities for programming paths and behaviors of a remotely operated robot in an unstructured environment in a shared autonomy manner concurrent with human inputs.
  • Provide the ability for users to model robotic manipulators operating in highly realistic environments (urban, rural...) and dynamic scene objects (e.g. chairs, doors, bags, pegs, screws wires) allowing the implementation of remote manipulation scenarios involving physical interaction with the environment.
  • Provide the means of implementing online machine learning algorithms using data from operator inputs and feedback from both virtual and physical robots as they interact with their respective virtual and physical environments.
  • Include a hardware robot with anthropomorphic dynamic capabilities that can interface with the virtual scene and provide real-time feedback based on real-world motion and force sensing capabilities.
  • Include a low noise (mechanical and electronic) and high-fidelity input device capable of transmitting motion and reliable force commands to both the remote virtual environment and its physical counterpart, while providing force feedback to the user based on motion tracking and interaction forces experienced at the remote virtual and/or physical sites to enable accurate identification of human input dynamics.
  • Provide a control and actuation chain that is near field-ready for both the input device and robot, such that transitioning from a laboratory setup to a field-deployed system requires no changes to the control methodology, actuator dynamics, torque density, or maintenance approach.
  • Include the necessary real-time software environment for deploying the paths and learned behaviors prototyped in the virtual environment, as well as performing further online task development and learning.

Additional outcomes

The proposed solution should:

  • Be modular and robot-agnostic in its implementation, such that although it features a specific robot and its digital twin, it can accommodate different robot models with minimal modifications and effort, with the same flexibility applying to the input device across system configurations.
  • Include a high-level graphical scene modeling environment that is user-friendly and supports real-time dynamic capabilities.
  • Incorporate a realistic, high-performance physics engine that, while not required to exactly replicate real-world interaction forces, provides contact-realistic modeling with real-time capabilities such as MujoCoFootnote 1 or DrakeFootnote 2.
  • Provide a seamless interface between software modules that minimizes the need for additional programming, ensuring that system integration requires minimal effort and allowing users to focus on robotics, control and learning development.
  • Include a lightweight, self-contained hardware robot with sufficient dynamic bandwidth for contact applications, designed to maximize transportability and reconfigurability without compromising dynamic force performance, and ideally incorporating features such as a quick-connect base, integrated power and motor drives, and a portable controller.

Background and context

Over the recent years remotely operated robotic systems, whether aerially or ground deployed, have been used increasingly in critical civil or military applications such as inspection, maintenance and repair of utility infrastructures (e.g. power lines, dams, wind turbines) search and rescue, medical interventions and Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) operations. For these types of operations, a high level of intelligence and autonomy on behalf of the remote robot is desirable to minimize task load and increase situation awareness for the operator. In addition, elements related to telepresence, intuitive operation, and limiting information overload through multimodal feedback quickly become determining factors in the successful execution of the task.

Many of these applications require the manipulator to be in contact with their environment, where both force and motion as well as their dynamic relationship must be controlled in a stable and efficient manner. Contact-based tasks are notoriously difficult for robot manipulators to execute in a fully autonomous manner, especially in unstructured environments such as the ones involved in the use cases mentioned above. Thus, the presence of humans-in-the-loop to assist the system is often the most viable solution. Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning have greatly contributed to increasing the level of autonomy of robotic systems. Indeed, a studyFootnote 3 performed by the Toyota Research Institute in collaboration with Columbia University and the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab has clearly demonstrated the advantages of using Humans-in-the-Loop and haptic feedback in teaching new robot behaviors. An environment combining online learning capabilities based on human inputs would potentially create more versatile, adaptable remotely operated robots for applications in unstructured environments involving physical interaction.

Maximum grant value and travel

Multiple grants could result from this Challenge.

Phase 2

  • Maximum funding: $1,500,000.00 CAD
  • Project duration: Up to 18 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 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

The successful applicant will be expected to travel to NRC's Aerospace Manufacturing Technology Center, Montreal to demonstrate the operation of the system and provide training to enable NRC researchers to independently test and validate its performance.

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 be submitted by a business that meets all of the following criteria:

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

Evaluation criteria

Phase 2

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

Part 1: Phase 2 - Mandatory Criteria

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

Mandatory Criteria

(Applicant's proposal must address)

Question 1 a: Phase 2 Scope

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

Question 1 a: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)
Pass

The proposed solution is within the scope for the challenge, and clearly addresses all Essential Outcomes identified in the Challenge.

Fail

The proposed solution is articulated as out of scope for the challenge.

or

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

or

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

or

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

Question 2: Proof of Feasibility and Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
  1. Indicate the current TRL of the proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)
  2. 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:

  1. There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment and/or to prove the solution's feasibility.
  2. The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research.
  3. The solution is demonstrated at TRL 4 or lower.
  4. The solution is demonstrated at higher than TRL 9.
  5. Insufficient/unclear/no justification explaining the R&D that took place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.
  6. 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:

  1. An inventionFootnote *, new technology or new process that is not currently available in the marketplace.
  2. 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.
  3. An improvement in functionality, cost or performance over an existing technology/process that is considered state-of-the-art or the current industry best practice.
Question 3a: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)
Pass:

The proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation.

Fail:
  • The proposed solution does not meet any of the ISC definitions of innovation

    or
     
  • The proposed solution is an incremental improvement, "good engineering", or a technology that would go ahead in the normal course of product development (i.e. the next version or release).
Question 3b: Advance on State of the Art

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

To demonstrate this, the proposal must include the following information:

  • Improvements (minor or major) over existing technologies or substitutes. Use direct comparison.
  • How the proposed innovation will create competitive advantages in existing market niches or market spaces.
Question 3b: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory Criteria – Pass/Fail + Points)
0 points/Fail:
  • The Applicant (offeror) has not demonstrated that the proposed solution advances the state-of-the-art over existing technologies, including available competing solutions; or
  • The proposed solution improves minimally upon the current state of the art, though not sufficiently enough to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; or
  • The stated advancements are described in general terms but are not substantiated with specific, measurable evidence.
5 points/Pass:
  • The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one or two minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that have potential to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.
12 points/Pass:
  • The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers three or more minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that together are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches

    or
     
  • The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one significant improvement to existing technologies that is likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.
20 points/Pass:
  • The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers two or more significant improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches and could define new market spaces

    or
     
  • The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution can be considered a new benchmark of state of the art that is clearly ahead of competitors and that is likely to define new market spaces.

Part 2: Phase 2 - Point-Rated Criteria

Proposals must meet the overall minimum pass mark of 65 of 130 possible total points (50%) to be deemed responsive. Proposals that do not achieve the minimum pass mark will be declared non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Point-Rated Criteria

(Applicant's proposal to address)

Question 1b: Scope

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

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

Question 1b: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the solution will address any of the Additional Outcomes. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 3 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 6 points
  4. 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)
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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)
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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)
  1. 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
  2. Information is feasible for the Phase 2 project plan but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
  3. 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)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 2 project plan. 0 points
  2. Information is provided but there are minor gaps in required management and/or technological skill sets and/or experience to deliver the Phase 2 project plan. 10 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 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)
  1. No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that  would be taken to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups. 0 points
  2. A description and concrete examples of actions to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups provided. 10 points
  3. If the Applicant (offeror) is registered on the Indigenous Business Directory, Modern Treaty or Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (CLCA) business list/directory, please provide this information as part of this criterion as registered Indigenous Businesses will receive the maximum score for Question 8: Inclusivity.20 points
Question 9: Phase 2 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight

Describe the financial controls, tracking and oversight that will be used to manage the funds throughout Phase 2. Applicants (offerors) should indicate if an individual or firm will be managing the funds and provide their credentials and/or relevant experience.

A good financial control in R&D refers to effective management and oversight of financial resources allocated to R&D activities, with the goal of maximising the return on investment and ensuring funds are used efficiently and effectively.

For example, this section could include (but not limited to):

  • Establishing clear budgets and financial plan
  • Regular monitoring
  • Developing systems for tracking and recording costs (salaries, equipment and supplies, overhead expenses, etc.)
  • Providing accurate and timely financial reports (including actual and projected costs) to stakeholders such as management, funders or researchers
  • Ensuring compliance with relevant financial regulations, policies and procedures
Question 9: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant's ability to manage funds in Phase 2. 0 points
  2. 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
  3. 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)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has planned a realistic strategy for commercialization. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates a conceivably realistic strategy for commercialization, however there are gaps and/or elements of the strategy is vague. 5 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has a clear, comprehensive and realistic strategy. 10 points

Questions and answers

All incoming questions regarding this specific challenge should be addressed to 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.