Quantum repeaters for scalable quantum networks and distributed sensing

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) is seeking innovative solutions that advance quantum repeater technologies for long-distance quantum communication and multi-node quantum networks. This challenge supports development from early-stage feasibility studies in Phase 1 to integrated prototype systems in Phase 2, with the ultimate objective of enabling quantum repeater nodes that support long-distance quantum networks capable of surpassing the fundamental limits of direct quantum transmission through a chosen channel.

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

Funding mechanism:
Grant

Opening date:
May 21, 2026

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

Propose a solution

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

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

Challenge

Problem statement

Quantum repeaters are a central component of future quantum networks, enabling entanglement distribution over distances where direct transmission becomes impractical due to channel loss. Although major progress has been made in individual building blocks such as quantum memories, entangled photon generation, and entanglement-swapping protocols, achieving repeater-level performance remains an unsolved global challenge.

Canada’s ecosystem includes strong academic research, advanced photonic and quantum hardware companies, and emerging expertise in networked quantum systems. This challenge aims to catalyze the development of repeater architectures and prototypes that build on these strengths and move Canada closer to globally competitive quantum networking infrastructure.

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The proposed solution must:

Demonstrate the potential to surpass the direct-transmission limit: The proposed solution must demonstrate, through theory, modeling, experimental validation of individual components, or prototype measurements, that the repeater architecture can contribute to a credible pathway towards surpassing the direct-transmission limit for the chosen quantum channel. Applicants must describe how their combination of storage capability, retrieval efficiency, fidelity, repetition rate, multiplexing approach, and channel-loss characteristics supports repeater-level performance.
Demonstrate or model a viable heralded quantum memory: The proposed solution must incorporate a memory, or a functionally equivalent approach, that can store and retrieve quantum states for durations appropriate to the chosen architecture. This requirement may be met through long coherence times, fast repetition, multiplexing, or other suitable approaches consistent with the overall repeater design and transmission channel.
Demonstrate or model entanglement-swapping capability: The proposed solution must include a clear plan or demonstration for performing Bell-state
measurements or an equivalent entanglement-swapping process. Applicants should describe how this approach aligns with their overall repeater architecture and enables link-to-link entanglement distribution.
Demonstrate or model a channel-compatible interface: The proposed solution must demonstrate or outline a practical interface between the repeater design and the chosen quantum channel. This may include establishing wavelength compatibility, coupling strategies, emission and detection pathways, and methods to mitigate channel loss, consistent with the proposed architecture.

Additional outcomes

The proposed solution should:

Integrate multiple repeater subsystems—memory, entanglement source, swapping module, and channel interface—into a functional node.
Demonstrate or model scalability to multi-node networks.
Provide robust operation under realistic conditions, such as multi-hour stability, environmental tolerance, or continuous operation.
Develop network-level software and control for synchronization, routing, resource management, and error handling.
Provide testing of components or prototypes in representative channel environments suitable for the chosen architecture.

Background and context

Quantum networks are expected to enable secure communication, distributed quantum sensing, and modular quantum information processing. Although research has produced significant progress in areas such as memory lifetimes, integrated photonics, deterministic photon sources, and entanglement-swapping techniques, these components have yet to be integrated into repeater nodes capable of outperforming direct transmission in realistic environments.

Canada’s ecosystem of universities, national laboratories, and quantum hardware companies provides a strong foundation for advancing this technology. This challenge aims to support both feasibility-stage investigations and prototype-stage system integration, ultimately helping position Canada as a global leader in scalable quantum networking technologies.

Maximum grant value and travel

Multiple grants could result from this Challenge.

Phase 1

Maximum funding: $250,000.00 CAD
Project duration: Up to 6 months
Estimated number of grants: 2

Phase 2

Maximum funding: $3,000,000.00 CAD
Project duration: Up to 24 months
Estimated number of grants: 1

Note: Selected companies are eligible to receive one grant per phase per challenge.

This disclosure is made in good faith and does not commit Canada to award any grant for the total approximate funding. Final decisions on the number of Phase 1 and Phase 2 awards will be made by Canada based on factors such as evaluation results, departmental priorities, and availability of funds. The Government of Canada reserves the right to make partial awards and to negotiate project scope changes.

Travel

No travel is anticipated.

Kick-off meeting

All communication will take place by telephone or videoconference.

Progress review meeting(s)

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

Final review meeting

All communication will take place by telephone or videoconference.

Eligibility

Solution proposals can only be submitted by a small business that meets all of the following criteria:

for profit
incorporated in Canada (federally or provincially)
499 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) employees^{Footnote **}
research and development activities that take place in Canada
50% or more of its annual wages, salaries and fees are currently paid to employees and contractors who spend the majority of their time working in Canada^{Footnote **}
50% or more of its FTE employees have Canada as their ordinary place of work^{Footnote **}
50% or more of its senior executives (Vice President and above) have Canada as their principal residence^{Footnote **}

Evaluation criteria

Phase 1

The Applicant (offeror) must complete the Challenge Stream Submission Form with a degree of information sufficient to enable Canada's assessment of the proposal against the criteria and the Evaluation Schema. The information must demonstrate how the proposal meets the criterion. The Applicant (offeror) may not add information to their submission at a later time.

Part 1: Phase 1 - Mandatory Criteria

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

Mandatory Criteria

(Applicant's proposal must address)

Question 1 a: Scope

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

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

Pass

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

Fail

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

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

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

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

Question 2: Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

Indicate the current TRL of the proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)
Describe the research and development activities that have taken place to bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.

This section should include:

A description of the method of research
The solution objectives and an analysis of the results proving the feasibility of the solution
Data proving the solution's feasibility
Evidence to demonstrate the highest level of validation conducted (e.g. activities such as paper studies, analytic studies, components that are not yet integrated or representative, integration of "ad hoc" hardware in the laboratory, laboratory testing, simulated environment, field testing, debugging, etc.)
The type of environment(s) in which this was done and by whom, including title

Question 2: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)

Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution is currently between TRL 1 to 4 (inclusive), and provided justification by explaining the research and development (R&D) that has taken place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.

Fail:

The Applicant (offeror) has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 1 to 4 (inclusive) including:

There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment.
The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research.
The solution is demonstrated at TRL 5 or higher.
Insufficient/unclear/no justification explaining the R&D that took place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.
The explanation simply paraphrases the description of a given TRL level.

Question 3a: Innovation

Demonstrate how the proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation below:

An invention^{Footnote *}, new technology or new process that is not currently available in the marketplace.
Significant modifications to the application of existing technologies/components/processes that are applied in a setting or condition for which current applications are not possible or feasible.
An improvement in functionality, cost or performance over an existing technology/process that is considered state-of-the-art or the current industry best practice.

Question 3a: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)

Pass:

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

Fail:

The proposed solution does not meet any of the ISC definitions of innovation
or
The proposed solution is an incremental improvement, "good engineering", or a technology that would go ahead in the normal course of product development (i.e. the next version or release).

Question 3b: Advance on State of the Art

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

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

Improvements (minor or major) over existing technologies or substitutes. Use direct comparison.
How the proposed innovation will create competitive advantages in existing market niches or market spaces.

Question 3b: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory Criteria – Pass/Fail + Points)

0 points/Fail:

The Applicant (offeror) has not demonstrated that the proposed solution advances the state-of-the-art over existing technologies, including available competing solutions; or
The proposed solution improves minimally upon the current state of the art, though not sufficiently enough to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; or
The stated advancements are described in general terms but are not substantiated with specific, measurable evidence.

5 points/Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one or two minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that have potential to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.

12 points/Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers three or more minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that together are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; or
The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one significant improvement to existing technologies that is likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.

20 points/Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers two or more significant improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches and could define new market spaces; or
The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution can be considered a new benchmark of state of the art that is clearly ahead of competitors and that is likely to define new market spaces.

Part 2: Phase 1 - Point-Rated Criteria

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

Point-Rated Criteria

(Applicant's proposal to address)

Question 1b: Scope

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

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

Question 1b: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the solution will address any of the Additional Outcomes. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 3 points
Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 6 points
Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address all (100%) of the Additional Outcomes. 10 points

Question 4: Phase 1 Science and Technology (S&T) Risks

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

Question 4: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Information is insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies or information provided contains significant gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified the potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies. 10 points

Question 5: Phase 1 Project Risks

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

Applicants (offerors) should address the following risks:

Human Resources
Financial
Project Management
Intellectual Property
Supply chain issues

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

Question 5: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Information is insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies or information provided contains significant gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified the potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies. 10 points

Question 6: Phase 1 Project Plan

Demonstrate a Proof of feasibility Phase 1 project plan by completing the table in the Proposal Submission Form.

Indicate if any milestones and activities will be completed concurrently
Indicate the estimated exit TRL at the completion of Phase 1. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)

Question 6: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate a feasible project plan for Phase 1 and/or the project plan exceeds the maximum duration indicated in the Challenge Notice. 0 points
Information is feasible for the Phase 1 project plan but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
Information provided demonstrates a feasible project plan for Phase 1. 20 points

Question 7: Phase 1 Implementation Team

Demonstrate how the project implementation team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the project plan for Phase 1 by completing the table. A member of the implementation team can have more than one role.

Question 7: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that there are minor gaps in required management and/or technological skill sets and/or experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan.10 points
Information provided demonstrates that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 20 points

Question 8: Inclusivity

A key objective of the Innovative Solutions Canada program is to increase the participation of under-represented groups in the research and development of the proposed solution.

Applicants (offerors) should describe the policies, strategies, and/or procedures (e.g. recruitment strategy, internships, co-op placements, or other initiatives) that they currently have in place or would put in place to support the R&D effort in Phase 1 including an overview of the group(s); and which specific under-represented groups (women, youth, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, visible minorities, 2SLGBTQI+ community, etc.).

Note: Do not provide any personal information of individuals employed by your company or that of your subcontractors in the response.

Question 8: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that are in place or would be taken to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups. 0 points
A description and concrete examples of actions to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups provided. 10 points
If the Applicant (offeror) is registered on the Indigenous Business Directory, Modern Treaty or Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (CLCA) business list/directory, please provide this information as part of this criterion. A registered Indigenous Businesses will receive the maximum score for Question 8: Inclusivity. 20 points

Question 9: Phase 1 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight

Describe the financial controls, tracking and oversight that will be used to manage the funds throughout Phase 1. Applicants (offerors) should indicate if an individual or firm will be managing the funds and provide their credentials and/or relevant experience.

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

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

Establishing clear budgets and financial plan
Regular monitoring
Developing systems for tracking and recording costs (salaries, equipment and supplies, overhead expenses, etc.)
Providing accurate and timely financial reports (including actual and projected costs) to stakeholders such as management, funders or researchers
Ensuring compliance with relevant financial regulations, policies and procedures

Question 9: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant's ability to manage funds in Phase 1. 0 points
Information provided is vague and/or contains gaps. The Applicant (offeror) has some financial controls, tracking and/or oversight in place to manage the funds in Phase 1. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has financial controls, tracking and oversight to manage funds in Phase 1. 10 points

Question 10: Phase 2 Overview

Demonstrate an overview for the prototype development plan if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Responses should include:

key tasks
estimated cost for materials
human resources
project risks and mitigation strategies

Note: A more detailed project plan may be requested if selected for consideration to participate in Phase 2.

Question 10: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

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

Phase 2

Part 1: Phase 2 - Mandatory Criteria

Mandatory Criteria

(Applicant's proposal must address)

Question 1 a: Phase 2 Scope

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

Pass

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

Fail

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

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

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

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

Question 2: Proof of Feasibility and Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

Indicate the current TRL of the proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)
Describe the research and development activities that have taken place to prove the solution's feasibility and bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.
This section must include :
- A description of the method of research;
- The solution objectives and an analysis of the results proving the feasibility of the solution;
- Data proving the solution's feasibility;
- Evidence to demonstrate the highest level of validation conducted (e.g., activities such as paper studies, analytic studies, components that are not yet integrated or representative, integration of "ad hoc" hardware in the laboratory, laboratory test, simulated environment, field testing, debugging, etc.);
- The type of environment(s) in which this was done and by whom, including title.

Question 2: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)

Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution is currently between TRL 5 to 9 (inclusive), and provided justification by explaining the research and development (R&D) that has taken place to bring the solution to the stated TRL, proving the solution's feasibility.

and

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated the research and development activities that have taken place to prove the solution's feasibility and bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.

Fail:

The Applicant (offeror) has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 5 to 9 (inclusive) including one or more of the following:

There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment and/or to prove the solution's feasibility.
The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research.
The solution is demonstrated at TRL 4 or lower.
The solution is demonstrated at higher than TRL 9.
Insufficient/unclear/no justification explaining the R&D that took place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.
The explanation simply paraphrases the description of a given TRL level and only provides a vague description and overview of the R&D completed.

Question 3a: Innovation

Demonstrate how the proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation below:

An invention^{Footnote *}, new technology or new process that is not currently available in the marketplace.
Significant modifications to the application of existing technologies/components/processes that are applied in a setting or condition for which current applications are not possible or feasible.
An improvement in functionality, cost or performance over an existing technology/process that is considered state-of-the-art or the current industry best practice.

Question 3a: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)

Pass:

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

Fail:

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

or
The proposed solution is an incremental improvement, "good engineering", or a technology that would go ahead in the normal course of product development (i.e. the next version or release).

Question 3b: Advance on State of the Art

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

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

Improvements (minor or major) over existing technologies or substitutes. Use direct comparison.
How the proposed innovation will create competitive advantages in existing market niches or market spaces.

Question 3b: Evaluation Schema (Mandatory Criteria – Pass/Fail + Points)

0 points/Fail:

The Applicant (offeror) has not demonstrated that the proposed solution advances the state-of-the-art over existing technologies, including available competing solutions; or
The proposed solution improves minimally upon the current state of the art, though not sufficiently enough to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; or
The stated advancements are described in general terms but are not substantiated with specific, measurable evidence.

5 points/Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one or two minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that have potential to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.

12 points/Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers three or more minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that together are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches

or
The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one significant improvement to existing technologies that is likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.

20 points/Pass:

The Applicant (offeror) has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers two or more significant improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches and could define new market spaces

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

Part 2: Phase 2 - Point-Rated Criteria

Point-Rated Criteria

(Applicant's proposal to address)

Question 1b: Scope

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

Question 1b: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the solution will address any of the Additional Outcomes. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 3 points
Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 6 points
Information provided demonstrates that the solution will address all (100%) of the Additional Outcomes. 10 points

Question 4: Phase 2 Science and Technology Risks

Identify potential scientific and/or technological risks to the prototype development and describe how they will be mitigated in Phase 2.

Question 4: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Information is insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies or information provided contains significant gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has identified the potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies. 10 points

Question 5: Phase 2 Project Risks

Identify potential project risks to the prototype development and describe how they will be mitigated in Phase 2.

Applicants (offerors) should address the following risks:

Human Resources
Financial
Project Management
Intellectual Property
Material availability
Supply chain issues

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

Question 5: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Information is insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies or information provided contains significant gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicants (offerors) has identified potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicants (offerors) has identified the potential risks and described associated mitigation strategies. 10 points

Question 6: Phase 2 Project Plan

Demonstrate a feasible Phase 2 project plan by completing the table in the Proposal Submission Form.

Indicate if any milestones and activities will be completed concurrently;
Indicate the estimated exit TRL at the completion of Phase 2. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Submission Form)

Question 6: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate a feasible project plan for Phase 2 and/or the project plan exceeds the maximum duration indicated in the Challenge Notice. 0 points
Information is feasible for the Phase 2 project plan but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
information provided demonstrates a feasible project plan for Phase 2. 20 points

Question 7: Phase 2 Implementation Team

Demonstrate how your project implementation team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the project plan for Phase 2 by completing the table provided.

Question 7: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 2 project plan. 0 points
Information is provided but there are minor gaps in required management and/or technological skill sets and/or experience to deliver the Phase 2 project plan. 10 points
Information provided clearly demonstrates that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 2 project plan. 20 points

Question 8: Inclusivity

A key objective of the Innovative Solutions Canada program is to increase the participation of under-represented groups in the research and development of the proposed solution.

Applicants (offerors) should describe the policies, strategies, and/or procedures (e.g. recruitment strategy, internships, co-op placements, or other initiatives) that they currently have in place or would put in place to support the R&D effort in Phase 2 including an overview of the group(s); and which specific under-represented groups (women, youth, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, visible minorities, 2SLGBTQI+ community, etc.).

Note: Do not provide any personal information of senior officials, individuals employed by your company or that of your subcontractors in the response below.

Question 8: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that would be taken to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups. 0 points
A description and concrete examples of actions to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups provided. 10 points
If the Applicant (offeror) is registered on the Indigenous Business Directory, Modern Treaty or Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (CLCA) business list/directory, please provide this information as part of this criterion as registered Indigenous Businesses will receive the maximum score for Question 8: Inclusivity.20 points

Question 9: Phase 2 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight

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

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

Establishing clear budgets and financial plan
Regular monitoring
Developing systems for tracking and recording costs (salaries, equipment and supplies, overhead expenses, etc.)
Providing accurate and timely financial reports (including actual and projected costs) to stakeholders such as management, funders or researchers
Ensuring compliance with relevant financial regulations, policies and procedures

Question 9: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant's ability to manage funds in Phase 2. 0 points
Information provided is vague and/or contains gaps. The Applicant (offeror) has some financial controls, tracking and/or oversight in place to manage the funds in Phase 2. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has financial controls, tracking and oversight to manage funds in Phase 2. 10 points

Question 10: Commercialization Strategy

Explain your plan to commercialize the solution after Phase 2 into the commercial marketplace and/or ISC's Pathway to commercialization.

Applicants (offerors) should address the following:

Any previous experience and record in commercialization (e.g., sales; marketing; IP protection; demographic/target market analysis; manufacturing; technology commercialization);
Additional funding commitments from private and/or non-ISC funding sources;
Previous investments secured outside of the ISC program.

Note: Information on the Innovative Solutions Canada Pathway to commercialization process can be found on the program's website.

Question 10: Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant (offeror) has planned a realistic strategy for commercialization. 0 points
Information provided demonstrates a conceivably realistic strategy for commercialization, however there are gaps and/or elements of the strategy is vague. 5 points
Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant (offeror) has a clear, comprehensive and realistic strategy. 10 points

Questions and answers

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.