Weak magnetic anomaly detection for defence and security

ISED is seeking a novel magnetometer (either quantum or classical or a combination thereof) that provides advantage over existing capabilities either in sensitivity, specificity, or Size, Weight, Power and Cost (SWaP-C), and multi-domain employability.

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

Funding mechanism:
Contract

Opening date:
October 30, 2026

Closing date:
November 27, 2026, 14:00 Eastern time

Propose a solution (login required)

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

This challenge is only open to receive proposals for Phase 2 (prototype development) of our Challenge Stream.
- Proposed solutions that fall within within technology readiness level (TRL) 5 and 9 can be submitted to this challenge
We recently made changes to the Challenge Stream, we have outlined the new parameters.
Read through the official solicitation documents.
To read the tender notice for this specific challenge, refer to Tender Notice | CanadaBuys

Challenge

Problem statement

Canada has a requirement for magnetic anomaly detection for defence and security. Traditional magnetometers, such as fluxgate sensors, have been used for decades to measure the strength and direction of magnetic fields. A fluxgate magnetometer is a relatively simple classical device: it consists of a coil of wire wrapped around a core material and detects changes in magnetic flux passing through the sensor. While reliable, these classical sensors face inherent limitations in size, sensitivity, accuracy, and long term stability. Quantum magnetometers, by contrast, leverage the principles of quantum mechanics and promise the ability to achieve superior performance. They offer enhanced sensitivity, improved accuracy and stability, and in some cases even reduced size and weight compared to their classical counterparts.

There is a lack of suitably mature quantum sensors in the commercial space. The government of Canada has identified a need to develop a device or system consisting of hardware and software and a quantum sensor or a mix of classical and quantum sensors capable of sensing nanotesla (nT) or even femtotesla (fT) magnetic signals that can be used for a myriad of commercial, medical, and defence applications. In scanning the research underway, there appears to be interest in various means for the sensing of magnetic fields, including but not limited to Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices (SQUID), Superconducting Quantum Interference Filter (SQIF), and (Nitrogen Vacancy (NV) diamond. In addition to this we are led to believe that Rydberg atoms, typically framed for electric field detection can be reconfigured and/or adapted for magnetic field detection as well. We are also aware of another technology termed Spin-Exchange Relaxation-Free (SERF) which is very sensitive, but so sensitive as to be problematic to employ. This investigation seeks to explore nT and even fT sensitivities.

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The proposed solution must:

Essential range and direction finding considerations

Demonstrate sensing capabilities of magnetic anomalies in close proximity where distance (d) is greater than or equal to (≥) 2 meters (m) with a relative error less than 10%. The device must provide azimuth to +/- 5 degrees, and an inclination of +/- 5 degrees.
Sensitivity

Produce a prototype capable of a minimum of 500 picotesla (pT) sensitivity with a target of 10 fT.
Specificity

The device must be able to separate a target signal from background noise. A sensitive magnetometer will detect a plethora of magnetic fields in a given cluttered environment, but the user will be interested in the absence or presence of a target signal. The device must detect and identify three specific Steel 1018 ferromagnetic targets at a minimum distance of 10 meter through free space. It must achieve a 95% true positive rate (TPR) for both detecting the presence of a target and classifying which specific target is present.
Rough characterization

Demonstrate ability to characterize the nature of the source in rough order of magnitude – i.e. point source vs larger objects +/- 5 centimeters (cm).
Latency

Readout less than or equal to (≤) 200 milliseconds (ms) meaning sensing, ranging, azimuth, and inclination reading allowing dynamic device sensor use for object or enclosure survey. This 200 ms is the total time from sensing to displaying the result to the human user. This time includes physical sensing, processing to the point the user is provided useful data.
Sense through barrier capability

Ability for device to sense through paramagnetic barrier materials such as walls (including but not limited to wood, gypsum board, plaster, insulation material) with some barriers inundated with clutter from other materials such as steel studs, nails, screws, pipes and other ferromagnetic materials.
Prototype description

All parts/components fully integrated in one system of systems, including but not limited to power, API/software, hardware (sensor, cooler – if applicable).
Power

Power consumption must be 50 W or less. Integrated replaceable power supply offering at least eight (8) hours of cordless and continued operation at temperatures ranging between 16°C and 40°C at a relative humidity between 30 and 60%.
Human factors

Must be lightweight and compact/portable (e.g.; hand-carried, “shoulderable”, body worn).
Size and weight

Volumetric dimensions ≤117,232 cm³ (77 x 52.5 x 29 cm); maximum weight ≤ 15Kg.
Environmental considerations

The initial device must be designed at least for indoor use at temperatures ranging between 16°C to 30°C with relative humidity between 30-60%.
Per unit cost

Must show that a finished device can be made under $60,000 CAD.

Additional outcomes

The proposed solution should:

Desirable range

It is desirable to have a device that has greater standoff range in excess of 2m. The accuracy in ranging the MA would ideally be less than 1% relative error. Maximum sensing distance is desirable. The device should provide an azimuth to +/- 1 degree, and an inclination of +/- 1 degree.
Rough characterization

The device provides a rough but human interpretable shape of the object, that allows the object to be characterized or even identified.
Sensitivity

Produce a prototype capable of surpassing 10 fT sensitivity.
Specificity

Ability to characterize and identify magnetic anomalies (objects with a known magnetic signature).
Quiet

Device should be silent (vibration/audible signature).
Desired Configuration

Device does not emit acoustic, electromagnetic (EM), and/or heat signature. Can run in both low and high humidity in temperature extremes from -20 to +40C, under conditions of vibration, and through cluttered barriers (e.g.; barrier material convoluted with wiring, and magnetic structural material).
Target Scale

Desirable to be used against both large (room sized) and small (hardware or package sized) enclosures or objects.
Static vs oscillating field detection

Ability to differentiate between static and oscillating magnetic fields.
Characterization of magnetic anomalies/sources

Ability to characterize and identify magnetic anomalies. Ability to discern shape and size +/- 1 cm.
Human factor / accessibility considerations

Device should be suitably adapted as to be easy to train on, easy to use (intuitive), and be in a shape or form factor that is amenable for the operator to use in both open and confined settings. The device should be man portable. Human factor considerations will be rated by a panel of experts and multi-criteria analysis^{Footnote 1}.
Environmental considerations

Produce a more robust device for outdoor land use capable of -40-40 °C, over a wide range of Canadian climate conditions is desired. This includes extremes in humidity, hot, cold, and use in wet or dusty conditions.

Background and context

Magnetometry and magnetic sensors play an important role in the detection and measurement of magnetic fields around us. Applications for use exist in many industries and interest areas are not limited to natural resource discovery (including critical minerals), monitoring of the environment, healthcare, defence, and security.

For natural resource discovery magnetic sensors are used to help sense and identify mineral deposits including copper, nickel, iron, and gold. Indeed, the same technology has promise in the search for rare earth minerals which are essential to commercial, academic, and security uses.

Magnetic sensors also play an important role in environmental monitoring. They can be used to track ocean currents, detect geologic activity, and observe other natural processes. By measuring subtle variations in magnetic fields and related proxy signals, magnetometers provide valuable insights into changes in the Earth’s climate.

In healthcare, many imaging technologies—most notably magnetic resonance imaging—depend on generating and detecting subtle perturbations in magnetic flux. Researchers are now exploring the use of nitrogen vacancy diamonds integrated into existing MRI systems, with the goal of achieving higher sensitivity and improved image resolution.

Maximum contract value and travel

Phase 2

Maximum funding: $2,000,000.00 CAD
Project duration: Up to 24 months
Estimated number of contracts: 1

This disclosure is made in good faith and does not commit Canada to award any contracts 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 contract per phase per challenge.

Travel

Travel to Ottawa about 4 times during the contract period.

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 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 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.

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

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 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.

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 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

Offerors are invited to refer to the tender notice for this specific challenge at: To read the tender notice for this specific challenge, refer to Tender Notice | CanadaBuys

All enquiries must be submitted in writing to the Contracting Authority at TPSGC.PASIC-APISC.PWGSC@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca no later than (10) ten calendar days before the Challenge Notice closing date. Enquiries received after that time may not be answered.

Responses to enquiries will be published through an amendment to the Challenge Notice on CanadaBuys. It is the responsibility of Offerors to monitor CanadaBuys regularly for updates throughout the solicitation period.

A glossary is also available.