Development of a transportable Optical Ground Station

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

The Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are seeking innovative research and development (R&D) solutions to provide a secure and resilient information eco-system by leveraging optical links via a transportable Optical Ground Station (OGS) capable of establishing communication with low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites.

Challenge sponsor:
Department of National Defense (DND)

Funding mechanism:
Contract

Opening date:
May 21, 2026

Closing date:
July 2, 2026, 14:00 Eastern time

Log in to view your submissions

Propose a solution

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

  1. 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
  2. We recently made changes to the Challenge Stream, we have outlined the new parameters
  3. Read through the official solicitation documents
  4. To read the tender notice for this specific challenge, refer to Tender Notice | CanadaBuys
 

Challenge
 

Problem statement

The defence of North America requires resilient, secure, and assured connectivity between assets in space and on the ground. Low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellations offer global coverage and low latency, enabling next‑generation sensing, communications, and command‑and‑control capabilities essential to modern defence operations, including those conducted in the Arctic.

Defence Research and Development Canada's (DRDC) Space Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Architectures Initiative is a multi‑year science and technology (S&T) effort supporting Continental Defence by advancing concepts, technologies, and architectures that enable resilient space information mobility. A key focus of this initiative is understanding how future space‑based communication systems can be effectively employed to support Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) operations in northern and Arctic environments.

This Challenge invites proposals for the design, development, and demonstration of a transportable Optical Ground Station (OGS) capable of establishing high‑bandwidth optical communication links with satellites in low Earth orbit. The objective is to deliver a representative OGS prototype, that can serve as an R&D platform to characterize performance, environmental sensitivity, and operational trade‑offs for optical satellite communications in Arctic conditions.

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The proposed solution must:

  1. Support for optical links with LEO satellites at altitudes up to 1,000 km with a minimum data rate ≥1 Gbps under representative link conditions.
  2. Be transportable within one (1) 20 foot ISO shipping container, two (2) 10 foot ISO containers, or an equivalent mobile platform, with a maximum total system mass of 15,000 kg, compatible with standard commercial transport methods (e.g., flatbed truck, cargo vessel).
  3. Feature a modular hardware architecture with standardized mechanical, electrical and optical interfaces enabling replacement, modification, and upgrade of optical instruments, detectors, modems, and subsystems.
  4. Be designed for interoperability with multiple optical communication standards (e.g., CCSDS, SDA, ESTOL) and demonstrate compatible operation with at least two existing or planned space-based optical communication terminals or recognized reference ("gold standard") systems.
  5. Able to operate in harsh conditions, from −40C to 40C with sustained winds up to 20 knots and gusts up to 30 knots (up to 55 knots stowed).
  6. Be deployable and operable on unprepared Arctic terrain (e.g., snow, ice, tundra, gravel, permafrost) without permanent ground preparation or fixed foundations, tolerating surface slopes up to 5° (≈9%) while maintaining required performance.
  7. Include mitigation features for snow, ice, and rain. At a minimum, the solution must provide:
    1. Enclosures supporting ≥30 cm snow load, equivalent to a pressure of 1kPa;
    2. Environmental sealing against moisture ingress with a rating equivalent to IP55 (as defined by the standard IEC 60529) when the transportable optical ground station is closed;
    3. De icing or anti icing functionality that does not degrade operational performance.
  8. Include instrumentation and logging capability sufficient to characterize optical link performance, pointing stability, availability, and environmental effects (e.g., wind, temperature, snowfall) during Arctic deployment and operations.
  9. Include remote monitoring and control capabilities, as well as autonomous link acquisition and tracking
  10. Demonstrate that system setup, commissioning, and alignment (excluding site transport and gross positioning) can be completed by two personnel within 8 hours, using standard tools and prescribed deployment procedures.
  11. Has a power interface that includes a physical and electrical generator‑mounting slot and accepts multiple standardized external power inputs such as 120 V, 240 V AC (50/60 Hz) US plugs, single‑ and three‑phase sources while autonomously managing power conditioning, conversion, and safe operation.
  12. The control room or equivalent section of the transportable optical ground station must be maintainable to a temperature of 20oC ± 2oC during operation.

Additional outcomes

The proposed solution should:

  1. Have atmospheric compensation, link optimization and capacity to establish links  in moderate to strong turbulence ( > 10-13m-2/3)
  2. Provide command and control designed for stand-alone operation or in a network of ground stations, enabling handover and exchanging tracking information to reduce handover downtime.
  3. Include battery backup systems for off-grid or remote deployments that allow continuous operation for 2 hours or more.
  4. Be capable of establishing high-speed data links at data rates ≥10 Gbps.
  5. Have capability for quantum and classical communications such as quantum key distribution.

Background and context

The defense of Northern Canada and the Arctic region is a strategic priority, where reliable communications remain a significant challenge due to the remoteness and harsh environmental conditions. Optical communications offer a promising solution to connect isolated locations with high-bandwidth links. To advance our understanding of the feasibility, deployment, and operational use of optical communications in these extreme environments, it is critical that the ground station be designed to withstand severe winter conditions. This capability will enable testing and validation of optical links in the Arctic, supporting future defense and sovereignty objectives.

Although ground stations capable of establishing optical links with LEO satellites already exist, space-to-ground communication still remains an important challenge. High data rates are achievable, link availability is affected by cloud cover and weather conditions. LEO satellites have short visibility windows—typically less than 15 minutes—with most of that time spent at low elevation angles. At these angles, the optical path through the atmosphere is longer, increasing turbulence and attenuation. Given the SWaP constraints of small LEO satellites, photon link budgets can also be tight.

  1. American and European governmental agencies have demonstrated proofs-of-concept: Laser Communications Relay Demonstration (LCRD) Overview – NASA;
  2. HydRON: High thRoughput Optical Network | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore;
  3. The European Space Agency (ESA) has a transportable ground station which supports their optical communications projects: ESA – ESA shipping container's laser link to space;
  4. Several optical communications standards are currently under development, including SDA OCT (versions 3.0 and 4.0), CCSDS, and ESTOL. At this stage, it is uncertain which standard will be adopted for future operations. To ensure flexibility and promote interoperability between civilian and military space assets, as well as across international partners, it is essential that the optical ground station be designed with the capability to adapt to multiple standards. This adaptability will support research and development efforts and enable integration with evolving technologies and protocols.
  5. In addition to classical optical communications, the integration of quantum communication capabilities is of growing interest, particularly in the context of secure links and quantum key distribution (QKD). Canada's QEYSSAT mission exemplifies this trend, aiming to demonstrate space-based QKD for enhanced security in future networks. Designing a ground station that can support both classical and quantum optical links will position the system to leverage emerging technologies and contribute to national and allied quantum communication initiatives.

Maximum contract value and travel

Multiple grants could result from this Challenge.

Phase 1

  • The maximum funding available for any Phase 1 contract resulting from this Challenge is: $300,000.00 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 4 months (excluding submission of the final report).
  • Estimated number of Phase 1 contracts: 4

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 : $2,000,000.00 CAD excluding applicable taxes, shipping, travel and living expenses, as required.
  • The maximum duration for any Phase 2 contract resulting from this Challenge is up to 14 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* 
  • research and development activities that take place in Canada
  • 50% or more of its annual wages, salaries and fees are currently paid to employees and contractors who spend the majority of their time working in CanadaFootnote *
  • 50% or more of its FTE employees have Canada as their ordinary place of workFootnote *
  • 50% or more of its senior executives (Vice President and above) have Canada as their principal residenceFootnote *

Evaluation criteria

The official source of the Evaluation Criteria for this challenge is the Government Electronic Tendering System (CanadaBuys).

In the event of a discrepancy between the information below and the information published on CanadaBuys, CanadaBuys will take precedence.

Phase 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.

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: 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 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:

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

  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 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)
  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 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)
  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 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)
  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 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)
  1. 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
  2. Information is feasible for the Phase 1 project plan but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
  3. 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)
  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 1 project plan. 0 points
  2. 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
  3. 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)
  1. 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
  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. 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)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant's ability to manage funds in Phase 1. 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 1. 5 points
  3. 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)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has contemplated an overview for the Phase 2 prototype development. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates an overview for Phase 2 prototype development, however it is vague and/or contains gaps. 5 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has a defined overview for the Phase 2 prototype development. 10 points
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

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

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.

 Report a problem
Date modified: