Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) is seeking a solution relying on a single bosonic mode to explore and demonstrate new quantum sensing protocols close to or beyond the Heisenberg limit. Circuit quantum electrodynamics (CQED) with superconducting qubits is the preferred platform for this challenge where controlled-displacement operations enable NRC researchers to test and search for novel quantum sensing protocols.
Challenge sponsor:
Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED)
Funding mechanism:
Contract
Opening date:
May 31, 2023
Closing date:
July 12, 2023, 14:00 Eastern Time
Please refer to the tender notice for this challenge on CanadaBuys.
Challenge
Problem statement
By leveraging quantum correlations in quantum systems, quantum sensors can provide increased sensitivity to improve the performances of various devices such as in gravimeters, gravitational wave detectors and atomic clocks. For testing the limits of quantum metrology and novel protocols access to a simple (single mode) and flexible (capable of various operations) is necessary.
ISC along with NRC's Security and Disruptive Technologies (SDT) research center has an interest in developing and benchmarking new methods and protocols to push the limits of quantum sensing. In this challenge, NRC is seeking a turn-key solution to single-mode resonator using superconducting qubits in a CQED architecture where arbitrary quantum states can be generated. The single mode sensor should be operated in the 7-10 GHz bandwidth and be controlled with an ancillary superconducting qubit to provide universal control.
Desired outcomes and considerations
Essential (mandatory) outcomes
The proposed solution must:
- Be able to implement a single-mode detector based on CQED in the 7-10 GHz bandwidth;
- Provide a gate with process fidelity of 90% or higher to enable universal protocols for state preparation
- Be long-lived such that 10 gates can be applied within the decoherence time of the control subsystems;
- Be turn-key with pre-defined and automated calibration of the single mode detector that enables non-specialist to operate
- Provide a programming framework and interface to control the device
- Provide access to 3 different coupling configurations for the single-mode sensor hardware
Additional outcomes
The proposed solution should:
- Be accessible remotely.
- Provide the ability to benchmark generation of continuous variable quantum states (e.g. cat states).
- Be compatible with quantum transducers for coherent operation in the optical domain in the future.
- Offer long-lived single mode sensor where 20 universal gates can be applied within the decoherence time of the control subsystems.
Background and context
Quantum technologies promise disruptive technological progress in computing, secure communication, and sensing. In the near term, quantum technologies offer an unprecedented approach for further scientific discovery. Within the context of this challenge, a quantum computing platform based on CQED in superconducting devices is selected for quantum sensing at its fundamental limits. An addition to foundational interest in exploring limits of quantum sensing, these quantum sensing applications will result in accurate characterization and benchmarking of these quantum computing platforms. This step is essential in improving quantum state preparation and manipulation on these devices which will be critical for fault-tolerant quantum computation and for enabling all if its expected advantages. The proposed challenge will require to develop a quantum computing platform for quantum sensing at its fundamental limits with a potential impact on further development of these devices for fault-tolerant quantum computation.
Some scanning errors can be partially alleviated in some instances by moving the scanner in non optimal ways; such as slower than desired and over very narrow ranges. Despite this, lithographic errors do occur while preparing atom scale circuits, requiring time consuming error correction methods. As well, slow indexing procedures and registration of the scanner are also continually required in order to know the probe's position and minimize positional errors during printing, especially of complex patterns over large areas.
Maximum contract value and travel
Multiple contracts could result from this Challenge.
Funding of up to $150,000.00 CAD for up to 6 months could be available for any Phase 1 contract resulting from this Challenge.
Estimated number of Phase 1 contract to be awarded: TBD
Funding of up to $1,000,000.00 CAD for up to 24 months could be available for any Phase 2 contract resulting from this Challenge. Only eligible businesses that received Phase 1 funding could be considered for Phase 2.
Estimated number of Phase 2 contracts to be awarded: TBD
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.
Travel:
No traveling will be required in Phase 1.
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) employeesFootnote **
- 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.
The Bidder must complete the Challenge Stream Electronic 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: 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
(Bidder's proposal must address)
Question 1 a: Scope
Describe the proposed solution 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 (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice.
Evaluation Schema (Mandatory — Pass/Fail)
Pass
The Bidder's proposed solution is clearly articulated, within the scope for the challenge and addresses all Essential Outcomes (if identified) in the Challenge Notice.
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 listed 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 the challenge.
Question 2: Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
- Indicate the current TRL of the proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Electronic Submission Form)
- Describe the research and development activities that have taken place to bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.
Evaluation Schema (Mandatory — Pass/Fail)
Pass
The Bidder has demonstrated that the proposed solution is currently between TRLs 1 and 6 (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 Bidder has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 1 to 6 (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 7 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*, 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.
* An "invention" is defined for the purposes of ISC as: "A manufacturing design or any other new and useful improvement that is new or novel, that is, not commonly known or not an obvious derivative of an existing way of doing things."
Evaluation Schema (Mandatory — Pass/Fail)
Pass
The Bidder has demonstrated that the proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation.
Fail
The Bidder has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 1 to 6 (inclusive) including:
- Bidder has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed solution meets any of the ISC definitions of innovation; OR
- Bidder has demonstrated that 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, proposals should 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.
Evaluation Schema (Mandatory Criteria — Pass/Fail + Points)
0 points/Fail:
- The Bidder 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 Bidder 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 Bidder 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 Bidder 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 Bidder 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 Bidder 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: Point-Rated Criteria
Proposals must meet the overall minimum pass mark of 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
(Bidder'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, Bidders will receive 10 points.
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 clearly demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 3 points
- Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 6 points
- Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address all (100%) of the Additional Outcomes. 10 points
Question 4: Phase 1 Science and Technology (S&T) Risks
Describe potential scientific and/or technological risks to the successful development of the proof of feasibility and how they will be mitigated in Phase 1.
Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
- Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Bidder has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points
- Information provided demonstrates that the Bidder has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
- Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Bidder has sufficiently considered the risks and defined associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
Question 5: Phase 1 Project Plan
Demonstrate a feasible Phase 1 project plan by completing the table.
- 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 Electronic Submission Form)
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
- Project plan for Phase 1 is conceivably feasible but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
- Information provided clearly demonstrates a feasible project plan for Phase 1. 20 points
Question 6: Phase 1 Project Risks
Describe potential project risks to the successful development of the proof of feasibility and how they will be mitigated in Phase 1.
Bidders should address the following risks, as applicable:
- Human Resources
- Financial
- Project Management
- Intellectual Property
- Other project-related risks
Note to Bidders: S&T risks should not be included in this section. Question 4 addresses S&T risks.
Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
- Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Bidder has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points
- Information provided demonstrates that the Bidder has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
- Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Bidder has sufficiently considered the risks and defined associated mitigation strategies. 10 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.
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 is provided but 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 clearly 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
If your business were to receive funding from Innovative Solutions Canada, describe what actions (e.g., recruitment strategy, internships, co-op placements, etc.) might be taken in Phase 1 to support the participation of under-represented groups (e.g., women, youth, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, visible minorities) in the research and development of the proposed solution. Each Bidder in their response to this question must focus only on describing relevant programs, policies, or initiatives that it currently has in place or would put in place to support the R&D effort in Phase 1.
Note: Do not provide any personal information of individuals employed by your company or that of your subcontractors in the response.
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. 5 points
Question 9: Phase 1 Financial Proposal
Demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan by completing the table.
Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
- Insufficient information provided and/or information provided significantly lack credibility. Does not demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points
- Information is provided but some costs lack credibility and/or are unclear for the Phase 1 project plan. 7.5 points
- Information provided contains credible elements to clearly demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan. 15 points
Question 10: Phase 1 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight
Describe the financial controls, tracking and oversight that will be used to manage the public funds throughout Phase 1. Bidders should indicate if an individual or firm will be managing the public funds and provide their credentials and/or relevant experience.
Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
- Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Bidder's ability to manage public funds in Phase 1. 0 points
- Information provided is vague and/or contains gaps. The Bidder has some controls, tracking and/or oversight in place to manage the public funds in Phase 1. 5 points
- Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Bidder has strong financial controls, tracking and oversight to manage public funds in Phase 1. 10 points
Question 11: Phase 2 Overview
Demonstrate a realistic 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 proposal will be requested if selected to participate in Phase 2.
Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
- Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Bidder has contemplated a realistic overview for the Phase 2 prototype development. 0 points
- Information provided demonstrates a conceivably realistic overview for Phase 2 prototype development, however there are gaps and/or the strategy is vague. 6 points
- Information provided demonstrates that the Bidder has a clear and realistic overview. 12 points
Question 12: Commercialization Approach
Demonstrate a realistic overall commercialization approach/business model that can successfully take the technology/service to market, and how the technology/service will help you develop and sell other products.
Responses should include:
- Target markets (excluding Government of Canada)
- Non-ISC funding sources
- Transition to a commercially-ready product or service
- Any other indicators of commercial potential and commercial feasibility
Note: A more detailed proposal will be requested if selected to participate in Phase 2 or the Testing Stream.
Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
- Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential. 0 points
- Some information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential, however there are gaps in the commercialization approach. 6 points
- A realistic commercialization approach is provided that demonstrates that the proposed solution has commercial potential. 12 points
Question 13: Resulting Benefits to Canada
Describe the benefits that could result from the commercialization of the proposed solution. Bidders should consider the potential benefits using the following three categories and provide justification for each claim:
- Innovation Benefits: Expected contribution towards the enhancement or development of new industrial or technological innovations within your firm. Responses could include: potential spillover benefits, creation of intellectual property, impact on productivity of the new technology, etc.
- Economic Benefits: Forecasted impact on the growth of Canadian firms, clusters and supply chains, as well as its expected benefits for Canada's workforce. Responses could include: number of jobs created, number of high-paying jobs, investment in Canada's economy, etc.
- Public Benefits: Expected contribution to the broader public to the degree that the solution is expected to generate social, environmental, health, security or other benefits to Canada. Responses could include: solution-related environmental benefits, solution-related accessibility benefits, and solution-related impact on Indigenous communities.
Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
- Innovation Benefits
Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points
Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1 point
Benefit is significant and well justified. 2 points - Economic Benefits
Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points
Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1 point
Benefit is significant and well justified. 2 points - Public Benefits
Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points
Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1 point
Benefit is significant and well justified. 2 points
Questions and answers
Please refer to the tender notice for this challenge on CanadaBuys.
All incoming questions regarding this specific challenge should be addressed to SIC-ISC@pwgsc.gc.ca
You can also consult the Frequently asked questions about the Innovative Solutions Canada Program.
A glossary is also available.