Infrared Quantum Light for Material Characterization and Secure Communication

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

The National Research Council (NRC) is seeking the development of an infrared quantum light for material characterization and secure communication.

Challenge sponsor:
The National Research Council (NRC)

Funding mechanism:
Grant

Opening date:
August 18, 2026

Closing date:
September 22, 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:

  • This challenge is open to receive proposals in Phase 2 (Prototype Development) of the Challenge Stream
  • We recently made changes to the Challenge Stream, we have outlined the new parameters
  • Read through the official Grant Instructions and Procedures document
  • Post-evaluation proposal selection will include the following priority: firms with a demonstrated track record of research and development in ultrashort pulsed laser sources.
 

Challenge
 

Problem statement

Existing light sources using traditional LEDs, thermal light sources or lasers in commercially available devices and tools are limited in their ability to achieve the required sensitivity to detect weak optical signals of nanoscale objects embedded in complex matrices. Unlike classical light, quantum light sources offer unprecedented precision in sensing, secure communication, and imaging, overcoming the limitations of thermal noise and having the possibility of surpassing the standard quantum limit of sensitivity.

This challenge seeks to develop a quantum light source that enables high sensitivity characterization of nanomaterials and also the possibility of use in secure communication in the mid and far infra-red (IR) wavelength regions. The source will generate correlated beams (twin-beams) that allow for using high-efficiency detectors in the near-IR while enabling quantum-enhanced detection in the mid and far-IR.

Quantum-enhanced precision can improve Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) mapping, target identification and secure, undetectable free space communication based on quantum entanglement. Other uses include active IR illumination that provides high-resolution night vision and tracking (target acquisition) for military and law enforcement, allowing visibility in complete darkness. Additional applications could include molecular sensing and material characterization for pollutant identification, hazardous substance detection and other materials.

While the primary drivers are security and nanomaterial characterization, the resulting technology can benefit the laser and photonics industries by enabling the development and calibration of advanced optical components and materials innovation in precision manufacturing, optical metrology, and quantum key distribution, quantum communication systems, astronomy (telescopes) and biomedical imaging systems—areas with strong potential for commercial growth and cross-sector adoption.

The prototype is expected to have a minimum of Technical Readiness Level of 6 through build, integration, and testing, with NRC's team directly involved in validating system performance.

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The proposed solution must:

  • Be able to switch between two output modes: Mode 1 and Mode 2.
  • Be able to operate in Mode 1 with the following parameters:
    • High output power (>1W);
    • Short laser pulses (<1 ps);
    • High repetition rate (>1 MHz);
    • High energy pulses (> 1 µJ);
    • Central wavelength in the mid-infrared (MIR) in the range of 2.8 – 3.4 µm;
    • Offset-free laser with carrier envelope stability RMSFootnote 1 Phase jitter < 300mradFootnote 2 (milliradians)];
    • Single spatial mode (M^2<1.2);
    • Actively stabilized to reduce density noise (<0.1% power stability over 1 minute, <1% RMS pulse-to-pulse stability).
  • Be able to operate in Mode 2 with the following parameters:
    • Two correlated outputs derived from the same output source in Mode 1;
    • One tunable output (~8-14 µm) with the other in the near-IR and detectable using InGaAsFootnote 3 detectors (Infrared detectors);
    • Both beams in low-order spatial modes;
    • High mode purity of near-IR beam (second order intensity correlation g^(2)(0) > 1.5).
  • Be packaged in a single box that can be mounted on an optical table (excluding power supply and cooling).
  • Have computer control over the output state.
  • Include output signals monitoring power stability and stabilization drives.

Additional outcomes

The proposed solution should:

  • Comprise a laser source in Mode 1 that can be seeded by another laser and act as an amplifier.
  • Demonstrate long-term stability operating in either mode.
  • Be designed to minimize the effects of environmental stability on output quality.

Background and context

Infrared spectroscopy is a valuable tool for the characterization of materials. One primary limitation of current tools is sensitivity and noise. Advanced light source development offers the possibility of reduced noise and thus higher sensitivity. This challenge aims towards a quantum-enhanced light source operating in the mid to far infrared which is suitable for spectroscopic applications and material characterization. Specifically, by making use of twin-beam sources, it is possible to make use of high quantum-efficiency detectors in the near-infrared while performing measurements in the mid and far-infrared. Currently, the majority of quantum-light sources are focused on telecom and visible light wavelengths but these are not are fit for purpose for infrared spectroscopy. However, these technologies do provide a roadmap for development of these light sources and demonstrate that high TRL tools can be developed using existing technologies.

Beyond material characterization, infrared light sources also offer exciting possibilities for secure communication with quantum light offering a more secure and robust methods of communication, especially when using correlated light sources. By operating in the mid to far infrared, these light sources are harder to distinguish from background thermal radiation, making them harder to detect in the field and thus offering the possibility of undetectable communication as well.

For both applications, it is necessary to develop stable laser sources that operate in either the short wave infrared or mid infrared which can then act as drivers for generation of the quantum light. By packaging the infrared driver and quantum light source generation into a single box, this challenge aims to develop a robust tool to support a myriad of Canadian priority areas for both material characterization and communications.

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

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.

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

Travel

At the end of the project, the successful applicant will be expected to travel to NRC's Metrology Research Centre to demonstrate the operation of the solution and provide training to enable NRC researchers to independently test and validate its performance. The NRC address for the demonstration and training is NRC-Metrology, 100 Sussex, Ottawa, ON K1N 5A2.

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.

 Report a problem
Date modified: