The challenge

Background and context

Minefields consist of anti-tank (AT) and anti-personnel (AP) landmines as well as other mobility obstacles such as anti-tank trenches, concertina wire, reinforced concrete dragon’s teeth, etc., all deliberately placed to prevent or slow the progression of friendly forces towards enemy locations. The minefields may be littered with metallic fragments such as shells, shrapnel, and unexploded ordnance, which may confound the sensors used to detect mines. The area may also be heavily cratered from combat operations and muddy, creating difficulties for vehicle mobility, especially for smaller or wheeled vehicles.

During an attacking operation the friendly force will attempt to penetrate the minefield with vehicles and equipment designed for what is called “Minefield Breaching.” While doing so, the enemy will engage the friendly force with direct and indirect weapons to defend the minefield. The consequential destruction of vehicles and equipment will further impede the advancement or retreat through the minefield requiring replacement equipment to be brought forward and new routes attempted, all while under fire.

Current mine breaching capabilities for such operations include mechanical means such as an armoured vehicle-mounted plow or flails (crewed and uncrewed) to physically activate or move the mines, or explosive devices such as the US M58 Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC) to detonate mines, to clear a breach lane. Once cleared, equipment such as an armoured vehicle-mounted mine roller is used to further reduce the risk from mines, unexploded ordnance, improvised explosive devices, and booby traps, by detonating any remaining items, thereby ensuring that the lane is ready for use. Anti-tank ditches are generally filled with soil or fascine and bridged, and physical mobility obstacles such as dragon’s teeth or wire are reduced using mechanical or explosive means.

This scenario has been a characteristic of combat operations for many decades, and the equipment used to penetrate minefields has stagnated in contrast to the development of weapons and warfare. The minefields created in the modern battlefront environment are unprecedented in terms of number and size (area) of minefields, as well as variety and density of mines and mobility obstacles within the minefields.

The modern minefield now includes advanced threats of “smart” landmines equipped with sensors such as magnetic, seismic, acoustic, electro-magnetic signature, or vibration triggered anti-tank mines and processing systems to detect, identify, and target specific systems from the bottom, top, or side. Mines are also made from different materials impacting the ability of currently employed detection sensors to locate them. Existing capabilities may not function as expected in the congested and contested electromagnetic environments, nor operate at the speed and operational tempo required at the modern battlefront.

The net result is that the complexity, size, and density of the modern minefield has outpaced the ability of the mine breaching equipment to clear an effective path quickly, leaving the friendly force exposed to the high intensity and accuracy of modern weapons with devastating results.

A previous challenge with a similar scope resulted in solutions largely focused on landmine detection. While mine detection is a critical component of obstacle reconnaissance, it alone is insufficient to fully characterize complex obstacle systems or to meet the information requirements of modern breaching and maneuver operations. Threat and obstacle awareness alone does not deliver combat effects; dedicated breaching forces and combat engineering capability are essential to defeat enemy obstacles and reduce minefields, enabling maneuver and operational momentum at the forward line. This challenge is set to address this gap.

 Desirable outcomes

This Challenge is deliberately structured to elicit solutions that engage the broader operational problem set, integrating detection, reduction, and maneuver-enabling capabilities.

DND/CAF is open to innovative solutions that address one or more of the following desirable outcomes:

• Demonstrate improved speed and overall effectiveness compared to current reconnaissance and minefield breaching approaches.
• Minimize reliance on costly armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs).
• Provide an operationally appropriate balance between solution cost, mission effectiveness, and expected rates of attrition and replacement during operations.
• Significantly enhance:
  • mine-clearing and obstacle-breaching capabilities;
  • the speed and scale of mine-clearing operations;
  • the effectiveness of mine-clearing operations.
• Substantially enhance:
  • minefield and obstacle boundary detection and delineation
  • physical object detection, identification, and classification
  • path planning, route selection, or breach lane design
• Reduce risk to personnel by increasing physical or operational distance between soldiers and explosive hazards.
• Integrate effectively with broader military command, control, and information systems.
• Enable rapid deployment and/or modular employment to respond to hastily employed or evolving enemy obstacle systems.
• Provide dual-use or transitional capability applicable to post‑conflict humanitarian demining.
• Provide means to verify or confirm the successful creation and viability of a breach lane.

Applicant guide

• Section 1. Context
• Section 2. The Challenge
• Section 3. Eligibility
• Section 4. Funding
• Section 5. Proposal form and submission
• Section 6. Proposal Evaluation
• Section 7. Privacy notice statement
• Section 8. Enquiries about the CFP
• Section 9. Contribution Agreement Award
• Section 10. Other Information
• Annex A
• Annex B
• Annex C

1. Context

The Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) program supports, expands, and sustains Science & Technology (S&T) community capacity outside of the Department of National Defence (DND) that can generate new ideas and formulate solutions to Canada’s current and future defence and security innovation challenges. These innovative solutions are critical for Canada and its allies to mitigate new threats and stay ahead of potential adversaries, while generating knowledge and economic benefits for Canada.

Minefields, comprising anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, as well as obstacles such as trenches, wire, and barriers, are used to slow or prevent movement toward enemy positions. These environments are often cluttered with debris, unexploded ordnance, and difficult terrain, complicating detection and mobility.

During operations, forces must breach these minefields under fire using mechanical or explosive methods to clear safe lanes. However, the complexity, scale, and density of modern minefields combined with advanced “smart” mines and increasingly contested electromagnetic environments have outpaced existing breaching capabilities.

Traditional approaches have not kept pace with evolving threats, leaving forces vulnerable and limiting operational speed. While past efforts have focused primarily on detection, effective operations also require integrated solutions for breaching and overcoming obstacles. This challenge aims to address that gap through the following two streams: Detection and Reconnaissance and Breaching Solutions. Advancing capabilities from these technologies will enable faster, safer, and more effective maneuver through contested environments.

Back to top

2. The Challenge

The Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are seeking game-changing disruptive solutions that improve the ability of military forces to operate through complex, heavily defended minefields and obstacle systems. Solutions may address one or both of the following challenge areas:

• Detection and Reconnaissance rapidly detect, identify, classify, and characterize mines, obstacles, and optimal breach opportunities to support operational planning and decision-making.
• Breaching Solutions rapidly and efficiently create safe lanes through minefields and obstacle systems to enable the movement of personnel and vehicles.

The Challenge is focused on solutions applicable to active combat environments while under fire from the enemy, although dual-use applications in post-conflict or permissive environments will be considered an asset.

The outcome of this Challenge is deliberately structured to elicit solutions that engage the broader operational problem set, integrating detection, reduction, and maneuver-enabling capabilities.

DND/CAF is open to innovative solutions that address one or more of the following desirable outcomes:

• Demonstrate improved speed and overall effectiveness compared to current reconnaissance and minefield breaching approaches.
• Minimize reliance on costly armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs).
• Provide an operationally appropriate balance between solution cost, mission effectiveness, and expected rates of attrition and replacement during operations.
• Significantly enhance:
  • mine-clearing and obstacle-breaching capabilities;
  • the speed and scale of mine-clearing operations;
  • the effectiveness of mine-clearing operations.
• Substantially enhance:
  • minefield and obstacle boundary detection and delineation.
  • physical object detection, identification, and classification.
  • path planning, route selection, or breach lane design.
• Reduce risk to personnel by increasing physical or operational distance between soldiers and explosive hazards.
• Integrate effectively with broader military command, control, and information systems.
• Enable rapid deployment and/or modular employment to respond to hastily employed or evolving enemy obstacle systems.
• Provide dual-use or transitional capability applicable to post‑conflict humanitarian demining.
• Provide means to verify or confirm the successful creation and viability of a breach lane.

Annex A provides the full Challenge Statement defining the design considerations and operational scenarios areas to be addressed.

Back to top

3. Eligibility

Eligible applicants:

• Canadian universities and educational institutions chartered in Canada;
• Canadian incorporated for-profit organizations;
• Canadian incorporated not-for-profit organizations; or
• Canadian provincial, territorial and municipal government organizations.

Applicants must be legal entities duly incorporated and validly existing in Canada.

Federal departments, agencies, or crown corporations, and any person that is employed under one of these, are not eligible for funding or participation. DND and federal departments will not provide government furnished property, including but not limited to access to facilities/equipment, information, and personnel other than the assigned Defence Advisor.

Back to top

4. Funding

4.1 Available Funding and Duration

Successful applicants will be required to enter into a non-repayable Contribution Agreement with DND (“Canada”). The maximum contribution per applicant is up to $1 million. The duration for the provision of funding is up to December 31, 2027.

The total funding available under this Challenge is expected to be $10 million. DND reserves the right to not accept proposals or to increase or reduce the amount of available funding at its entire discretion.

4.2 Stacking Provisions and Other Government Assistance

The total Canadian government (federal, provincial/territorial and municipal) assistance cannot exceed 100% of total project costs. Applicants must identify all sources of funding in their proposals and confirm this information in a Contribution Agreement if the proposal is selected for funding.

4.3 Eligible Costs

Eligible costs are those that are approved and incurred by the Recipients which, in the opinion of DND, are reasonable and necessary to carry out the eligible Minefield Breaching activities. Eligible costs will be limited to the Recipients’ actual, non-recurring, and incremental costs that are associated with the delivery of the approved proposal and that are required to achieve the expected results. More details on eligible and ineligible costs are included in Annex C – Eligible and Ineligible Costs.

4.4 Canadian Content

Generally, eligible costs, under all cost categories, are to be incurred in Canada. However, the IDEaS program may support eligible activities and associated costs incurred outside of Canada when necessary to ensure project success. In no case can more than 50% of eligible costs be incurred outside of Canada. Successful applicants must ensure no more than 50% of total eligible costs are incurred outside of Canada.

4.5 Other Sources of Funding: Cash and In-Kind Contributions

Applicants are encouraged, but not required, to demonstrate relevance, sustainability, and collaboration by leveraging cash and/or in-kind contributions from other sources in support of the proposed Minefield Breaching Challenge.

In-kind contributions are cash-equivalent goods or services provided by an organization to the Challenge that represent an incremental expense that would otherwise need to be incurred to deliver the proposed hub activities. Examples may include, but are not limited to, access to facilities or infrastructure, data, software, intellectual property, personnel time, or specialized equipment.

Cash contributions may be used to complement IDEaS funding by supporting additional activities, enhancing hub capacity, or expanding the scope of the Challenge operations beyond what could be achieved through IDEaS funding alone.

Where applicable, cash and in-kind contributions should be clearly described in the proposal, including their source, nature, and intended use. Contributions provided by Partner organizations or third parties are expected to be managed by the Lead Applicant in accordance with appropriate agreements among participating organizations.

Back to top

5. Proposal form and submission

5.1 Proposal form

Applicants must use the IDEaS Contest Proposal form. Applicants are and will remain solely responsible for the accuracy and completeness of their submission. Applicants should read the applicant guide and the challenge statement in its entirety prior to submitting their proposal.

The proposal must be submitted by an eligible Canadian entity, as described in section 3, by the stated deadline. No proposal submissions will be accepted after the deadline. Proposals not using the IDEaS Contest Proposal Form will not be accepted for consideration.

Applicants may submit more than one proposal, but project proposals/outcomes must be distinct, standalone, and have no interdependencies. If the proposals are identified as dependent, they will be declared as inadmissible and not be considered further.

In the proposal, applicants should demonstrate their capability and describe their approach in a thorough, concise, and clear manner for carrying out the work. The applicant's responses in the proposal form will form the Statement of Work for the project. The proposal should address clearly and in sufficient depth the points that are subject to the evaluation criteria against which the proposal will be evaluated.

To maintain the integrity of the evaluation, evaluators will consider only information presented in the proposal. No information will be inferred, and personal knowledge or beliefs will not be utilized in the evaluation. Applicants should explicitly demonstrate, in sufficient detail, how all criteria are met. Evaluators will take the entire proposal into consideration for each criterion. If information is found elsewhere in the proposal that corresponds to a criterion, evaluators will consider this.

All costs identified in the proposal must be in Canadian dollars.

It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the application complies with all relevant federal, provincial and territorial legislation and municipal bylaws.

5.2 Proposal submission

Applicants are required to register and submit their proposal(s) using the CPC Connect digital platform provided by Canada Post Corporation (CPC). CPC Connect is a digital delivery platform that facilitates sending and receiving confidential messages and documents. Proposals will not be accepted by email. It is the applicant’s responsibility to hold an account with CPC Connect and to complete the submission steps to submit the proposal.

• Request your Connect conversation (step 2 below) at least five (5) days prior to the CFP closing. 
• Classified proposals will not be accepted for this CFP.
• Anyone can create a Canada Post Connect profile and submit the proposal form. The lead applicant, or, if preferred, a coordinator in the lead institution may submit the proposal on behalf of the lead applicant organization. Part 1 of the Proposal form must provide information on the lead applicant.

Submission steps

5.3 Transmission issues or late submissions

DND will not be responsible for any failure attributable to the transmission or receipt of the proposal including, but not limited to, the following:

• Receipt of a garbled, corrupted or incomplete proposal;
• Availability or condition of the CPC Connect service;
• Incompatibility between sending and receiving equipment;
• Delay in transmission or receipt of the proposal;
• Illegibility of the proposal;
• Security of proposal data; or

• Inability to create an electronic conversation through the CPC Connect service.

Late submissions will not be accepted. Records will be kept documenting the transaction history of all late submissions. The only acceptable evidence of submission time and date is the CPC Connect service timestamp recorded in the conversation history that clearly indicates that the proposal was submitted before the deadline.

Back to top

6. Proposal Evaluation

DND is committed to a consistent, fair, and transparent process for selecting projects that align with program objectives. Proposals will undergo a two-step evaluation process:

• Compliance check to ensure all mandatory criteria have been met.
• Evaluation by DND/CAF representatives and/or subject matter experts using the point-rated criteria.

Proposals will be evaluated and scored according to the criteria listed in Annex B - Evaluation Criteria.

6.1 Mandatory criteria

Each proposal will be assessed against the mandatory criteria. Only proposals that meet all mandatory requirements will proceed to the next evaluation stage. Proposals that fail to meet any mandatory criteria will be deemed ineligible and will not move forward in the selection process.

6.2 Point-rated criteria

Proposals will be reviewed by subject matter experts selected by DND/CAF and may include representatives of other Canadian government departments.

6.3 Pre-qualified proposals

A pool of pre-qualified proposals will be compiled of potential solutions that DND/CAF may consider selecting for funding. Only proposals that pass the mandatory and point-rated criteria will be considered compliant and included in the pre-qualified pool. Inclusion in the pool does not obligate the Government of Canada to award grants or contributions, nor does it guarantee that a proposal will be selected or funded.

6.4 Proposal selection

DND/CAF will consider the evaluation results and may make funding decisions based on strategic parameters, such as:

• Operational investment – Justifies operational resource investment.
• Solution distinction – Avoids duplication of existing or planned work by Canada.
• Impact potential – Potential to disrupt or advance the Challenge domain significantly.
• Solution type – Selection across various solution types, methodologies, military environments, or technology readiness levels with preference towards proposals currently at TRLs 1-6.
• Benefit to Canada – Contributes to technological advancement and economic growth in Canada.
• Distribution of investment – Ensures investment across maximum defence and security applications and environments.

Selection decisions are final. There is no appeal process. DND may select one, multiple, or no proposal at its sole discretion.

Back to top

7. Privacy Notice Statement

DND will comply with the federal Access to Information Act and Privacy Act with respect to proposals received. By submitting personal information, an applicant is consenting to its collection, use and disclosure in accordance with the following Privacy Notice Statement, which explains how the applicant's information will be managed.

Necessary measures have been taken to protect the confidentiality of the information provided by applicants. This information is collected under the authority of the terms and conditions for the IDEaS Transfer Payment Program under DND.

Personal information included in all proposals will be kept along with the proposal results as Information Records of Business Value and retained. This information is protected under the Access to Information and Privacy Act. According to the Privacy Act, data linked to an individual and included in the proposal being evaluated can be accessed by the specific concerned individual who has rights with respect to this information. This individual may, upon request:

(1) be given access to his/her data by making an official privacy request through DND for the attention of the Director, Access to Information and Privacy (DAIP), and

(2) have incorrect information corrected or have a notation attached.

The Access to Information Act governs the protection and disclosure of information, confidential or otherwise, supplied to a federal government institution.

Paragraph 20(1) (b) of the Act states that:

a government institution [such as DND] shall refuse to disclose any record requested under the Act that contains financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that is confidential information supplied to a government institution by a third party and is treated consistently in a confidential manner by the third party.

Paragraph 20(1) (b) of the Act sets out two mandatory criteria in order to protect applicants’ confidential information supplied to DND from disclosure. First, the applicants’ documents supplied to DND must contain financial, commercial, scientific or technical information. Second, the applicant must consistently treat such information in a confidential manner. In other words, DND will protect the applicant’s confidential information in its possession as much as the applicant protects said confidential information in their own establishment.

Any Privacy or Access to Information request made under their respective Act and completed, will be retained by DAIP for a duration of two (2) years following after the date the request was responded to. After the retention period of two (2) years, the Privacy or Access to Information request file will be destroyed.

For additional information on privacy matters prior to submitting a proposal, please contact:

Director, Access to Information and Privacy (DAIP)

Department of National Defence (DND)

Telephone: direct: 613-992-0996 or toll free: 1-888-272-8207; Email: ATIP-AIPRP@forces.gc.ca

Applicants shall note that key information related to all contribution agreements (e.g., amount, name of the Recipients and project location) will be made available to the public on DND’s website.

Back to top

8. Enquiries about the CFP

The requirements of this Call for Proposals apply to this call only.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain clarification of the requirements contained herein, before submitting an application.

Enquiries received after that time may not be answered. Applicants must reference as accurately as possible the numbered item of this CFP to which the enquiry relates and must explain questions in sufficient detail to enable an accurate response. Questions and Answers received during the CFP may be made available to all applicants.

9. Contribution Agreement Award

Applicants of selected proposals will be invited to enter into a contribution agreement with DND. The ranking and selection of proposals for funding does not constitute a guarantee on the part of Canada that a contribution agreement will be awarded.

The IDEaS program will work with the selected Recipient to develop a contribution agreement based on the proposed projects for signature by the Recipient and DND which will identify the conditions of the contribution, the obligations of both parties, and the conditions under which payments will be made.

The amount of support will be determined according to the total eligible funding requested, as well as the other sources of funds.

Recipients should note that until a written agreement is signed by both parties, no commitment or obligation exists on the part of DND to make a financial contribution to any project. Expenditures incurred or paid by the recipient prior to the signing of such contribution agreement are ineligible.

All funded projects will be announced on the IDEaS website.

Back to top

10. Other Information

This section contains information which will be relevant only to those applicants whose proposals are selected for funding by DND. The Recipient shall ensure that all agreements with contractors are consistent with the rights granted in the Contribution Agreement between the Recipient and Canada.

10.1 Act Respecting the Ministère du Conseil Exécutif (M-30) for Québec Applicants

The Act Respecting the Ministère du Conseil Exécutif (M-30) may apply to an applicant that is a municipal body, school body, or agency located in the province of Québec. These applicants will be required to complete an additional information form and, if they are subject to the requirements of the Act, to obtain written authorization and approval from the Government of Québec prior to execution of any contribution funding agreement.

10.2 Basis of Contribution Payments

The Government of Canada’s fiscal year begins April 1 of any year and ends on March 31 in the following year. The Contribution Agreement will outline the fiscal year budget; start and end date of eligible costs; and documentation required for allocation of payments. Under no circumstance shall DND funding be provided or used for any eligible costs incurred until a Contribution Agreement has been executed between DND and the Recipient.

DND will make contribution payments to the Recipient in the form of advance payments upon receipt and acceptance by DND of the Recipient’s annual forecast of cash flow requirements report signed by the Recipient’s duly authorized officer. Cash flow reporting requirements will be outlined in the contribution agreement and include:

1. a) forecast report: projection of the eligible expenditures to be incurred each fiscal year; and
2. b) actuals report: summary of eligible expenditures incurred and paid during the reporting period.

An authorized officer is an appointed official (e.g. chief executive officer, vice president, chief financial officer, board chair, director, or direct owner) to whom the Recipient has granted the legal authority to create financial obligations on its behalf.

The Recipient shall use the advance payment only for payment of eligible costs (see Annex C – Eligible and Ineligible Costs).

Recipients are expected to spend all funds received by the end of the fiscal year before receiving an annual advance payment. Where an advance payment is not fully expended in a fiscal year for which it was provided, DND may consider the remaining balance as an overpayment that is subject to the contribution agreement overpayment terms. This includes either the reduction of the amount of the contribution equivalent to the overpayment amount; or repayment by the Recipient to DND of the overpayment amount; together with interest calculated in accordance with the federal Interest and Administrative Charges Regulations.

The Recipient must be prepared to provide supporting documents related to all eligible expenditures incurred.

Final payment will not be made until all agreed-upon project activities and reporting have been completed and are deemed acceptable by DND. In order to ensure appropriate project oversight, a reasonable holdback may be applied and released once all conditions of the contribution agreement have been met.

10.3 Research Security

The Government of Canada released a Research Security Policy Statement  encouraging all members of the research community, including academia, private sector, and government to take extra precautions to protect the security of research, intellectual property, and knowledge development. DND is working to develop specific risk guidelines to integrate national security considerations into the evaluation and funding of research projects and partnerships. These guidelines will better position researchers, research institutions and government funders to undertake consistent, risk-targeted due diligence of potential risks to research security and provide recommendations for complementary tools and measures to ensure researchers and research organizations working with national security partners have the capacity and resources necessary to implement the guidance.

Recipients are encouraged to work collaboratively to identify and mitigate potential security risks by utilizing existing tools available through the Safeguarding Your Research portal and Safeguarding Science's workshops. Recipients should conduct consistent and appropriate due diligence review of potential security risks to research activities and put in place timely measures to appropriately mitigate these risks.

DND may review project activities on national security grounds to ensure any national security risks are identified and addressed.

10.4 Reporting Requirements

Specific reporting requirements will be defined in the Contribution Agreement. Each successful applicant will be assigned to a DND Defence Advisor who is a DND/CAF subject-matter expert assigned to assess the progress of the projects activities and act as a link between the Recipient and the defence and security community. Regular communication between DND-IDEaS Program, the Defence Advisor, and the Recipient will be implemented to monitor progress. DND will request the Recipient to report on but not limited to the following:

• Three (3) Progress Reports per fiscal year – 1 verbal and 2 written. An example of information requested within the Progress Reports may include the following:
• Status of progress achieved on project activities and progress towards objectives;
• Report on Scientific/Technical Advancements;
• Report on cumulative Performance measurement indicators;
• Number and type of presentations at scientific conferences, and other outreach activities;
• Number and type of new partnerships and/or collaborations created or sustained;
• Amount of additional funding obtained through leveraging of contribution funds;
• Number of highly qualified personnel supported; and
• Information on Gender Based Analysis Plus (GBA+).

• Forecast of Cash flow Requirements and Record of Expenditures/Actuals Report (semi-annual or quarterly).

DND may request that other project performance measurement metrics be provided.

10.5 Challenge Demonstration

IDEaS anticipates organizing an in-person challenge demonstration event at a to be determined location within Canada. Successful recipients will be required to participate and demonstrate their technology live on location at this event. The purpose of this engagement is to showcase the capabilities and progress of funded projects, while fostering interaction with other innovators, representatives from the Department of National Defence (DND), and relevant government stakeholders.

At the event, recipients will present a general overview of their project, including background, objectives, key findings, and recent advancements, and will highlight significant achievements. A central component of participation will be the hands-on or operational demonstration of the developed technology in a realistic or representative setting.

Event planning and logistics will be coordinated by DND. In developing the proposal, applicants should plan and budget for participation in this demonstration event anticipated for the fall of 2027.

10.6 Communications

The Recipient shall acknowledge Canada’s Contribution in all information made public that is produced as part of the Project by mentioning the challenge was made possible through the contribution of the Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) Program of the Department of National Defence. The Recipient must make a reasonable effort to notify the IDEaS program at least fifteen (15) work days prior to the Communication. The IDEaS program will provide approved acknowledgement of funding and/or disclaimer script/wording.

10.7 Intellectual Property

All intellectual property (IP) rights that arise as a result of this program shall vest in the Recipient.

Canada may, at its sole discretion, include a provision in the Contribution Agreement requiring that the Recipient grant Canada, in perpetuity, a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free and world-wide licence, to use or have used, the intellectual property for government purposes. This licence allows Canada to do anything that it would be able to do if it were the owner of the IP, other than exploit it commercially, or transfer or assign ownership of it.

10.8 Conflict of Interest

The Recipient should consider any potential or perceived conflict of interest against its own conflict of interest guidelines. If selected for funding, the program may request documentation showing that the Recipient is aware and has considered any potential or perceived conflict against its own conflict of interest guidelines. The Contribution Agreement will include Conflict of Interest terms outlining that the Recipient shall notify DND of any conflict of interest situation. 

10.9 Audit Rights

The Recipient must:

• keep proper accounts and records regarding the project(s), for at least six (6) years after the project completion date;
• permit Government of Canada representatives to audit, inspect and make copies of those accounts and records at all reasonable times, up to six (6) years after the project completion date;
• grant the Government of Canada’s authorized representatives access to audit and inspect the qualifying project and related facilities;
• furnish the Government of Canada’s authorized representatives with such information as they may from time to time reasonably require with reference to the documents referred to herein; and
• promptly refund to DND any overpayments of the contribution disclosed by an audit, no later than thirty (30) calendar days from the date of Canada’s notice.

Back to top

Annex A – Challenge Statement

Minefield Breaching – Detect & Destroy

Building on the success of the “Safer Passage During Minefield Breaching Operations in Ukraine” challenge and the demonstration event held in 2025, the Department of National Defence's Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) program is launching a follow-on challenge to further advance innovative solutions for minefield breaching operations.

This new challenge seeks to build on the lessons learned, operational insights gained, and technologies demonstrated through the previous challenge and event. By continuing to engage innovators, researchers, and industry partners, using two streams, detection and reconnaissance and breaching solutions, DND aims to support the development of solutions that enhance force protection, improve operational effectiveness, and enable safer mobility in complex operational environments.

What IDEaS Provides 

Funding Mechanism: Non-repayable contribution

Maximum Funding per Proposal: Up to $1,000,000

Total Notional Funding Available: Up to $10,000,000

Contribution Duration: Up to December 31, 2027

Demonstration Opportunity: Recipients selected for funding will be provided an opportunity to demonstrate their technology in person at a designated location in Canada in Fall 2027. This event will allow participants to showcase their solutions in a realistic environment and engage directly with Department of National Defence (DND) representatives and other stakeholders.

What Innovators Bring

Innovators are invited to propose novel technologies, approaches, or integrated solutions that improve the safety, speed, and effectiveness of minefield breaching operations. Solutions may address one or both of the challenge streams, including the detection and localization of mines and explosive hazards, and/or the breaching of minefields to create safe passage for personnel and vehicles.

The Challenge 

The Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are seeking game-changing solutions that improve the ability of military forces to operate through complex, heavily defended minefields and obstacle systems. Solutions may address one or both of the following challenge areas:

• Detection and Reconnaissance – rapidly detect, identify, classify, and characterize mines, obstacles, and optimal breach opportunities to support operational planning and decision-making.
• Breaching Solutions – rapidly and efficiently create safe lanes through minefields and obstacle systems to enable the movement of personnel and vehicles.

The Challenge is focused on solutions applicable to active combat environments while under fire from the enemy, although dual-use applications in post-conflict or permissive environments will be considered an asset.

Background and context 

Minefields consist of Anti-tank (AT) and Anti-personnel (AP) landmines as well as other mobility obstacles such as anti-tank trenches, concertina wire, reinforced concrete dragon’s teeth, etc., all deliberately placed to prevent or slow the progression of friendly forces towards enemy locations. The minefields may be littered with metallic fragments such as shells, shrapnel, and unexploded ordnance, which may confound the sensors used to detect mines. The area may also be heavily cratered from combat operations and muddy, creating difficulties for vehicle mobility, especially for smaller or wheeled vehicles.

During an attacking operation the friendly force will attempt to penetrate the minefield with vehicles and equipment designed for what is called “Minefield Breaching.” While doing so, the enemy will engage the friendly force with direct and indirect weapons to defend the minefield. The consequential destruction of vehicles and equipment will further impede the advancement or retreat through the minefield requiring replacement equipment to be brought forward and new routes attempted, all while under fire.

Current mine breaching capabilities for such operations include mechanical means such as an armoured vehicle-mounted plow or flails (crewed and uncrewed) to physically activate or move the mines, or explosive devices such as the US M58 Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC) to detonate mines, to clear a breach lane. Once cleared, equipment such as an armoured vehicle-mounted mine roller is used to further reduce the risk from mines, unexploded ordnance, improvised explosive devices, and booby traps, by detonating any remaining items, thereby ensuring that the lane is ready for use. Anti-tank ditches are generally filled with soil or fascine and bridged, and physical mobility obstacles such as dragon’s teeth or wire are reduced using mechanical or explosive means.

This scenario has been a characteristic of combat operations for many decades, and the equipment used to penetrate minefields has stagnated in contrast to the development of weapons and warfare. The minefields created in the modern battlefront environment are unprecedented in terms of number and size (area) of minefields, as well as variety and density of mines and mobility obstacles within the minefields.

The modern minefield now includes advanced threats of “smart” landmines equipped with sensors such as magnetic, seismic, acoustic, electro-magnetic signature, or vibration triggered anti-tank mines and processing systems to detect, identify, and target specific systems from the bottom, top, or side. Mines are also made from different materials impacting the ability of currently employed detection sensors to locate them. Existing capabilities may not function as expected in the congested and contested electromagnetic environments, nor operate at the speed and operational tempo required at the modern battlefront.

The net result is that the complexity, size, and density of the modern minefield has outpaced the ability of the mine breaching equipment to clear an effective path quickly, leaving the friendly force exposed to the high intensity and accuracy of modern weapons with devastating results.

A previous challenge with a similar scope resulted in solutions largely focused on landmine detection. While mine detection is a critical component of obstacle reconnaissance, it alone is insufficient to fully characterize complex obstacle systems or to meet the information requirements of modern breaching and maneuver operations. Threat and obstacle awareness alone does not deliver combat effects; dedicated breaching forces and combat engineering capability are essential to defeat enemy obstacles and reduce minefields, enabling maneuver and operational momentum at the forward line. This challenge is set to address this gap.

Expected outcomes 

This Challenge is deliberately structured to elicit solutions that engage the broader operational problem set, integrating detection, reduction, and maneuver-enabling capabilities.

DND/CAF is open to innovative solutions that address one or more of the following desirable outcomes:

• Demonstrate improved speed and overall effectiveness compared to current reconnaissance and minefield breaching approaches.
• Minimize reliance on costly armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs).
• Provide an operationally appropriate balance between solution cost, mission effectiveness, and expected rates of attrition and replacement during operations.
• Significantly enhance:
  • mine-clearing and obstacle-breaching capabilities;
  • the speed and scale of mine-clearing operations;
  • the effectiveness of mine-clearing operations.
• Substantially enhance:
  • minefield and obstacle boundary detection and delineation.
  • physical object detection, identification, and classification.
  • path planning, route selection, or breach lane design
• Reduce risk to personnel by increasing physical or operational distance between soldiers and explosive hazards.
• Integrate effectively with broader military command, control, and information systems.
• Enable rapid deployment and/or modular employment to respond to hastily employed or evolving enemy obstacle systems.
• Provide dual-use or transitional capability applicable to post‑conflict humanitarian demining.
• Provide means to verify or confirm the successful creation and viability of a breach lane.

Scenarios

Threat Environment

Only the Non-Permissive threat environment will be considered for this challenge.

The Non-Permissive threat environment is when the enemy maintains observation of the minefield and seeks to prevent our forces from breaching and crossing the minefield. While breaching the minefield our forces will come under direct and indirect fire from assorted enemy weapon systems and will seek to minimize time in the minefield. The electro-magnetic environment may be jammed so control and navigation systems reliant on external communication links may be disabled. Visibility may be reduced.

The Permissive threat environment will NOT be considered for this challenge.

The Permissive threat environment is when the minefield is not under observation or defended by the enemy. Friendly operations in the minefield can be undertaken in a more timely and deliberate manner with the threats being the explosive hazards themselves. The task is not constrained by time. There is no direct or indirect fire, no reduced visibility, and the electromagnetic spectrum is not diminished.

It is assumed that effective solutions in non-permissive environments will perform at least as well in permissive conditions and may be further scalable to enhance their effectiveness.

Operational Scenario

The following scenario outlines the operational context used to evaluate proposed solutions, reflecting the demands of a non-permissive, high-intensity combat environment involving deliberate, large-scale breaching operations.

It highlights the key operational, tactical, and logistical factors that solutions must address to enable effective maneuver under fire, maintain operational tempo, and ensure resilience in the face of dynamic battlefield conditions. Specifically, the scenario assumes that:

• A deliberate pre-planned major offensive operation requires 10 concurrent lanes breached, each at least 4.5 m wide and 1 km long through a complex rural minefield at the front lines.
• The lanes formed through the minefield will be used by an array of land forces to attack and overwhelm the enemy on the other side. The ongoing progression and status of the mine breaching needs to be incorporated into the force’s overall command and control systems to synchronize the overall operation and adjust the tactical plan.
• Due to the non-permissive nature of the operation, speed of clearing the obstacles is critical to reduce the amount of time the breaching personnel and equipment are exposed to enemy fire.
• If a lane becomes impassable for any reason during the operation (for example, when a vehicle is destroyed by enemy fire), an immediate re-opening of the lane with a safe route to deviate around the blockage needs to be rapidly established.
• Equipment will need to be hardened for combat survival and continued operation, or economically scalable and immediately replaceable without slowing down the ongoing tactical operation.

To describe and assess the usefulness of proposed mine-breaching solutions, submissions will be evaluated against the technical criteria outlined in the Applicant Guide. The evaluation criteria and methodology are embedded within the ‘Solution Description Form’ submitted by each applicant.

Scope Delimitation

The Department of National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces (DND/CAF) is seeking disruptive, transformational solutions that can fundamentally accelerate the tempo and significantly enhance the effectiveness, survivability, and adaptability of minefield breaching operations in contested environments. Proposed concepts must move beyond incremental improvements to existing approaches and instead demonstrate novel capabilities that meaningfully expand operational possibilities under fire.

Submissions should not replicate or marginally improve upon legacy systems or well-established methods, including but not limited to:

• Traditional battlefield surveillance or reconnaissance approaches focused solely on imagery collection of minefields or obstacles.
• Conventional mechanical breaching systems such as mine rollers, flails, or ploughs integrated onto armoured engineering vehicles or main battle tank platforms.
• Established explosive breaching solutions, including line charge systems such as the M58 Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC) or the Python system.
• Standard handheld or man-portable mine detection technologies (e.g., Minelab F3 or equivalent).

Instead, DND/CAF is prioritizing solutions that introduce new operational concepts, integrate advanced technologies, or combine capabilities in ways that significantly improve speed, scalability, survivability, and the ability to sustain breaching operations under persistent threat.

Design Considerations for Both Streams

Applicants are encouraged to consider the following in the proposed solutions:

1. Minefield reconnaissance and boundaries

1.1 Probability of detection and characterization

Solutions should address measurable and operationally meaningful probability of detection (Pd) for a representative range of mine and obstacle types relevant to deliberate and hasty defensive obstacle systems. This includes anti‑personnel and anti‑tank mines (including smart and multi‑influence variants), surface‑laid and buried obstacles, wire, ditches, concrete obstacles, unexploded ordnance, and terrain denial features. Detection performance should be robust across varied soil types, vegetation, surface conditions, and levels of clutter, and resilient to environmental variability such as weather, temperature, and electromagnetic interference. Where detection performance varies with burial depth, soil composition, mine construction, or obstacle geometry, solutions should characterize and communicate these dependencies in a manner that supports operational risk assessment and planning.

1.2 Obstacle boundary delineation and geometry

Accurate definition of minefield and obstacle boundaries is critical for route selection, breach geometry development, and force synchronization. Solutions should aim to reliably delineate obstacle extents, depth, width, orientation, density, and internal structure. Where applicable, solutions should identify lanes, gaps, transitions between obstacle types, and points of reduced density. Boundary definition performance should include quantification of uncertainty and confidence levels sufficient to inform breach planning and commander decision‑making.

1.3 Localization accuracy and geospatial confidence

Detected mines and obstacles should be geolocated with accuracy and repeatability sufficient to enable follow‑on actions such as avoidance, verification, reduction, or breaching. Solutions should explicitly characterize localization uncertainty and provide associated confidence metrics with each reported detection or boundary estimate. Positional uncertainty may be communicated via confidence bounds, graded localization quality indicators, or equivalent means. Localization performance should remain effective under realistic operational conditions, including limited sensor vantage points, partial occlusion, uneven terrain, and intermittent sensing coverage.

1.4 Classification and discrimination

Effective minefield reconnaissance requires more than detection alone. Solutions should support discrimination and classification of detected objects and features, including distinction among anti‑personnel mines, anti‑tank mines, smart or multi‑influence mines, unexploded ordnance, and non‑mine obstacles. Where possible, solutions should provide attributes such as estimated burial depth, size, spacing, and obstacle type, along with confidence assessments. Accurate classification is essential to assessing hazard severity, selecting appropriate reduction methods, and prioritizing limited breaching resources.

1.5 Reconnaissance tempo and coverage rate

Solutions should enable reconnaissance coverage rates and timelines compatible with tactical and operational breaching requirements in non‑permissive environments. This includes minimizing time to achieve an obstacle picture, as well as the ability to refine or expand reconnaissance as new information becomes available. Where coverage is incomplete or degraded, solutions should clearly indicate reconnaissance gaps, reduced confidence areas, or assumptions to avoid false precision in planning.

1.6 Data reporting and dissemination

Timely, structured, and actionable reporting of minefield and obstacle data is critical for commander and staff decision‑making. Solutions should support integration with command and control, engineer planning, and mission command systems through standard or interoperable data formats. Reports may include geospatial products, boundary overlays, confidence metrics, and supporting sensor outputs suitable for route selection, breach planning, and synchronization of fires and maneuvers. Reporting latency should be minimized to support dynamic re‑planning as the tactical situation evolves.

1.7 Persistence and update capability

Where minefields or obstacles may be modified, reinforced, or partially reduced over time, solutions should support repeat or persistent reconnaissance to detect changes to obstacle layout, density, or configuration. Solutions should be capable of updating previously reported boundaries and obstacle characterizations, and of indicating when information is no longer current or reliable.

1.8 Cueing, marking, and handover to reduction forces

Solutions should consider how detected mines, obstacle boundaries, and gaps can be cued, marked, or otherwise handed over to follow‑on clearance, reduction, or breaching elements. Where physical or digital marking is employed, it should be accurately associated with the reported geospatial data and confidence metrics. Marking approaches should minimize the risk of error, avoid introducing additional hazards, and support correction or removal if subsequent reconnaissance revises the assessment.

1.9 Operational suitability

Proposed solutions should be suitable for employment in non‑permissive environments and compatible with combined arms operations. Considerations include deployability, survivability, sustainment burden, training requirements, and integration with existing engineer and maneuver force structures. Solutions should minimize exposure of personnel, limit logistical complexity, and be adaptable to different operational tempos, terrain types, and threat environments.

1.10 Avoiding Common Pitfalls

To guide your design approach, participants are encouraged to avoid the following pitfalls that could limit the operational relevance or real‑world applicability of proposed solutions:

1.10.1 Do not focus solely on landmine detection

Solutions should not limit their scope to detecting individual mines in isolation. Effective minefield reconnaissance must address the full obstacle system, including minefield boundaries, density, patterns, gaps, and associated non‑mine obstacles such as wire, ditches, concrete obstacles, and unexploded ordnance. Designs that provide high confidence point detections but fail to characterize obstacle extent, geometry, or integration will not fully support route selection or breach planning.

1.10.2 Do not overcomplicate the sensing architecture

Reconnaissance solutions should avoid unnecessary technical complexity that increases deployment time, integration risk, or sustainment burden in non‑permissive environments. Highly delicate sensor alignments, tightly coupled multi‑sensor fusion chains, or extensive site‑specific calibration requirements can reduce robustness and usability under combat conditions. Where similar operational effects can be achieved with simpler or more resilient approaches, those should be preferred.

1.10.3 Do not rely on niche, export‑restricted, or fragile components

Solutions should avoid dependence on foreign‑sourced, export‑controlled, or geopolitically sensitive components that could constrain availability, scalability, or long‑term sustainment. Likewise, reliance on niche sensors, specialty materials, or unique fabrication processes that are difficult to source or reproduce at scale should be avoided. Designs should emphasize commercially available or domestically producible components wherever possible.

1.10.4 Do not assume specialist operators or analysts

Minefield reconnaissance systems must not depend on highly specialized technical expertise to operate, interpret, or maintain. Solutions that require expert‑level signal interpretation, extensive manual post‑processing, or constant contractor support risk limited operational adoption. Output should be intuitive, clearly represented, and suitable for use by engineers, maneuvers, or command staff under time pressure.

1.10.5 Do not obscure uncertainty or over‑state confidence

Reconnaissance solutions should not present outputs with false precision. Uncertainty in detection, classification, boundary delineation, and localization is inherent and must be clearly communicated. Designs that fail to represent confidence levels, coverage gaps, or degraded performance areas can mislead planners and increase operational risk. Transparent communication of limitations is essential for informed decision‑making.

1.10.6 Do not neglect integration with breaching and command systems

Solutions should not operate as stand‑alone tools disconnected from command and control, engineer planning, or mission command systems. Outputs that cannot be readily ingested, overlaid, or updated within existing geospatial and planning workflows reduce operational utility. Designs should support interoperability and timely dissemination to enable route selection, breach design, fires synchronization, and dynamic re‑planning.

1.10.7 Do not prioritize exquisite performance over scalability

Highly optimized or high‑end solutions that deliver exceptional performance at prohibitive cost, size, or sustainment burden should be avoided. Minefield reconnaissance capabilities must be deployable at scale and across multiple formations. Solutions should emphasize cost‑effective performance that enables broad use rather than limited, high‑value demonstrations.

1.10.8 Do not overlook survivability and operational realism

Reconnaissance systems should not assume permissive use conditions. Designs must account for electromagnetic interference, concealment, physical damage, environmental exposure, and adversary counter‑measures. Solutions that are easily disrupted, detected, or degraded may fail to provide reliable obstacle intelligence when it is most needed.

1.10.9 Do not delay operational relevance

Solutions should not be trapped in extended development or demonstration cycles that defer real‑world utility. Minefield reconnaissance demands timely capability delivery and adaptability to evolving threats and tactics. Designs should support incremental capability growth, rapid iteration, and modular upgrades without requiring wholesale system replacement.

2.  Obstacle Reduction and Minefield Breaching

2.1 Breaching effectiveness and assurances

Solutions should reliably reduce or neutralize obstacles to a degree sufficient for safe vehicle passage. Breaching effectiveness should be measurable and linked to a clearly articulated definition of “lane assured” or “lane proven.” Where uncertainty remains, solutions should characterize residual risk and clearly communicate assurance levels to operators and commanders.

2.2 Speed and exposure minimization

Breaching solutions should minimize the time forces are exposed within the obstacle belt. Designs should emphasize rapid initiation, execution, and exploitation of breach lanes, consistent with doctrinal combined‑arms breaching principles. Where tradeoffs exist between speed and thoroughness, those tradeoffs should be explicitly addressed and operationally justified.

2.3 Lane verification, marking, and handover

Solutions should support both physical and digital marking of breach lanes. Physical markings should be robust, easily recognizable, and compatible with AFV operations under reduced visibility or degraded conditions. Digital representations should include accurate geospatial data, lane geometry, and confidence levels suitable for navigation and command and control integration.

2.4 Integration with command and control

Breaching solutions should integrate with existing command, control, engineer planning, and battle management systems. Reporting formats should be interoperable, timely, and suitable for dynamic re‑tasking, exploitation, and follow‑on maneuver. Solutions that automate or streamline reporting and reduce cognitive burden on operators are encouraged.

2.5 Survivability and adaptability under threat

Solutions must be suitable for employment in contested environments, accounting for enemy fires, electronic warfare, concealment, and counter‑breaching measures. Designs should emphasize robustness, resilience, and adaptability rather than reliance on ideal conditions or permissive assumptions.

2.6 Self‑Deployment

Solutions should be self‑propelled to the maximum practical extent. The system should be capable of moving from rear areas to forward staging positions without reliance on dedicated lift, transporters, or engineer‑specific recovery assets. Self‑deployment should include sufficient mobility to traverse mixed terrain, damaged infrastructure, and limited off‑road routes while remaining compatible with existing military road, bridge, and route classifications where feasible.

2.7 Mobility Aligned with supported formations

Breaching systems should be capable of keeping pace with maneuver forces, not merely operating once delivered. Mobility characteristics—speed, range, turning radius, obstacle negotiation—should be compatible with the formations they are intended to support. A system that arrives late or requires route improvement prior to movement imposes an operational penalty disproportionate to its technical contribution.

2.8 Scalability and sustainment

Breaching systems should support employment at scale, including multiple breach lanes and repeated breaching operations. Power, logistics, consumables, maintenance burden, and repairability should be consistent with sustained operations. Solutions should avoid excessive dependence on single‑use or high‑attrition components unless operationally justified.

2.9 Balance of cost and operational value

Solutions should strike an operationally realistic balance between cost, effectiveness, and expected attrition. Designs that reduce reliance on high‑value platforms or enable distributed, lower‑cost breaching approaches are encouraged, provided they deliver adequate performance and assurance.

2.10 Avoiding Common Pitfalls

Obstacle Reduction and Minefield Breaching

To guide design approaches, participants are encouraged to avoid the following pitfalls that could limit real‑world operational applicability:

2.10.1 Do not replicate legacy breaching solutions

Proposals should not simply reproduce traditional breaching systems such as mine rollers, flails, ploughs, or single‑use explosive line charges without meaningful innovation. Incremental improvements that do not materially change speed, survivability, assurance, or scalability are unlikely to meet challenge objectives.

2.10.2 Do not ignore breach assurance and verification

Solutions should not assume that reduction alone is sufficient. Failure to verify, prove, and clearly communicate lane safety undermines rapid exploitation and increases risk to follow‑on forces. Designs that lack credible lane assurance mechanisms or that obscure uncertainty should be avoided.

2.10.3 Do not over‑optimize for a single obstacle type

Breaching approaches that perform well against only one class of obstacle (e.g., mines alone) but are ineffective against integrated obstacle systems may have limited operational value. Solutions should account for mixed and layered obstacles commonly employed in modern defensive belts.

2.10.4 Do not over rely on scarce or exquisite platforms

Solutions should avoid excessive dependence on large, costly, or scarce AFVs that limit scalability and increase operational risk. Designs that enable distributed, flexible, or remotely operated breaching capabilities are preferred where appropriate.

2.10.5 Do not assume permissive conditions

Breaching solutions must not rely on uncontested execution, ideal visibility, or uninterrupted communications. Designs should consider degraded conditions, enemy interference, and time pressure, and remain functional when elements of the system are disrupted.

2.10.6 Do not neglect integration and handover

Solutions should not treat breaching as an isolated task. Failure to integrate marking, reporting, and lane handover into maneuver and command systems reduces the likelihood that breach lanes will be exploited effectively and safely.

2.10.7 Do not delay operational relevance

Proposed solutions should not be trapped in lengthy development cycles without near‑term applicability. Designs should support incremental capability delivery, modular upgrades, and adaptation to evolving threats rather than requiring wholesale replacement to remain relevant.

Annex B – Evaluation Criteria

Minefield Breaching – Detect & Destroy

Applicants must complete the DND Proposal form with sufficient detail to enable Canada to assess the proposal against the established evaluation criteria. The information provided should clearly demonstrate how the proposal meets each criterion.

Proposals will be assessed using mandatory criteria (MC) and Point-rated criteria (PRC).

To be eligible for funding, proposals must meet all mandatory criteria. The responsibility lies with the Applicant to demonstrate that the proposed project clearly meets each criterion.

Screening Criteria (SC)

Mandatory Criteria (MC)

Point-rated criteria (PRC)

Annex C – Eligible and Ineligible Costs

Minefield Breaching – Detect & Destroy

Eligible costs are limited to the following categories:

1. Salaries and benefits for students, research assistants and technical staff

Salaries and benefits are eligible if they are directly related to project activities, including project management, and reflect the exact costs associated with the employees.

Benefits are defined as employment costs paid by the employer and may include the following:

• Employer’s portion of CPP/QPP
• Employer’s portion of Employment Insurance (EI)
• Employer’s portion of group insurance
• Employer’s pension contributions

Benefits must not exceed 25% of an individual’s salary.

Maximum remuneration

Contributions from DND funds toward the total annual remuneration (fixed or variable) of each member must not exceed $225,000 per full-time equivalent (excluding benefits). This maximum applies to all positions (including employment contracts) and shall be pro-rated on the basis of the proportion of time worked relative to the full-time equivalent.

2. Capital expenses or rentals (equipment)

Equipment is defined as any item (or interrelated collection of items comprising a system) which is used wholly or in part for the research proposed and meets all three of the following conditions:

1) non-expendable tangible property;

2) having a useful life of more than one year; and,

3) a cost of $2,000 or more.

An item that fails to meet all three conditions listed above shall be classified as materials and supplies.

The Recipient will be responsible for obtaining the fair value of equipment at the time of purchase.

Equipment category must not exceed $25,000 per acquisition. All expenditures above $25,000 must obtain DND approval in advance of the acquisition. Rentals must be directly related to the project.

3. Professional services (provided by third parties not affiliated with the recipient)

Upon request, recipients will provide DND a copy of contracts for services under the project.

The Contribution Agreement should not be used or replicated for contracting with other parties. A recipient’s own contract should detail the activities and outcomes to be achieved under that contract, the costs, and deliverables. It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that all costs from service providers providing contracted services are eligible project costs.

4. Research and Development and Travel expenses

Research and development expenses relate to costs to create new, or improve existing, products or technologies or supporting research and development activities not included in the other listed cost categories. All costs must be directly related to the proposed work activities and may include the following: 

• Laboratory analysis services;
• Materials and supplies include items that meet at least one of the following conditions: 1) expendable tangible property; or, 2) useful life of 1 year or less; or, 3) a cost of less than $2,000.
• Publication, outreach and communication.
• Travel expenses must be costs necessary for conducting research related to the proposed solution and must be in accordance with the National Joint Council’s Travel Directive.
• Data acquisition and analysis are costs associated with research infrastructure such as scientific collections and information databases used wholly or in part for the proposed research.

5. Securing Intellectual Property

Securing intellectual property includes costs to prepare for legal protection of the Project’s intellectual property rights through formal registration.

6. Administrative overhead

Administrative Overhead costs are indirect expenditures incurred by recipients, which are required for the research activities, but cannot be specifically identified as project costs. These costs relate to the use of the organization’s resources, which may include, but are not limited to:

• Administrative support (e.g. accounting, payroll administration, meetings);
• Information Technology support;
• Internet, telephone, excluding long-distance charges;
• Use of photocopiers, fax machines, and other office equipment;
• Use of existing workstations, including furnishings and equipment (e.g. computers, scanners);
• Normal office software (not including software specifically required for the project);
• Memberships and subscriptions only if required to complete project activities;
• Staff recruitment and training;
• Routine laboratory and field equipment maintenance (e.g. oil changes);
• Building occupancy and operating costs (i.e. use of space); and,
• Facilities maintenance.

The administrative overhead costs cannot exceed 15% of the total Eligible Expenditures (before overhead).

7. Ineligible Costs

Ineligible costs include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Salaries and benefits for university investigators receiving direct and continuous salary through the university;
• In-kind contributions;
• Professional training or development, such as computer or language courses;
• The purchase of land or buildings;
• Costs of moving a lab;
• The purchase or lease of private/personal vehicles, vehicle maintenance costs or “Rental” charges for company-owned vehicles;
• Assets and capital items not specifically required for the execution of the project;
• Normal costs of establishing a commercial operation;
• Costs for activities that are deemed to be part of normal business practice for any Recipient, such as: Review engagements and audits, unless required in the agreement, Board of Directors’ meetings, Insurance
• Depreciation;
• Interest or overdraft charges and credit card fees;
• Refundable portion of the GST/HST, value-added taxes, or other items for which a refund or rebate is receivable;
• Hospitality – such as catering, alcohol, entertainment, honorariums, gifts (e.g., gifts for speakers or facilitators);
• Travel insurance (e.g., medical, accident, cancellation);
• Non-essential options for rental vehicles, for example GPS and roadside assistance (collision damage waiver insurance may be eligible);
• Gasoline purchased for private or company-owned vehicles (vehicle costs must be based on applicable NJC kilometric rate), and vehicle maintenance costs;
• Monthly parking fees for vehicles, unless specifically required for field work;
• Costs of regular clothing;
• Membership fees, unless specifically required for the project, must not already have membership;
• Discretionary employee benefits (e.g., parking at employer’s location, relocation costs for employees hired for the project, supplementary employment insurance benefits for maternity/paternity leave, staff awards and recognition);
• Patent fees;
• Costs for activities intended to directly influence/lobby governments;
• Direct marketing, business promotion or one-on-one extension types of activities;
• Costs associated with the review of graduate and PhD thesis; and,
• Other costs not specifically required for the project.

How to apply

Applicants should read the Applicant Guide in its entirety prior to submitting their proposal.

• Applicants interested in participating in this challenge must submit a proposal using the IDEaS Contest proposal form. Applicants remain solely responsible for the accuracy and completeness of their submission.
• Applicants are required to register and submit their proposal(s) using the CPC Connect digital platform provided by Canada Post Corporation (CPC). CPC Connect is a digital delivery platform that facilitates sending and receiving confidential messages and documents. Proposals will not be accepted by email. It is the applicant’s responsibility to hold an account with CPC Connect and to complete the submission steps to submit the proposal.
• Request your CPC Connect conversation at least five (5) days prior to the CFP closing. Classified proposals will not be accepted for this CFP. The lead applicant, or, if preferred, a coordinator in the lead institution may submit the proposal on behalf of the lead applicant organization.
• It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain clarification of the requirements contained herein, before submitting a proposal. Applicants must send enquiries to the Contests mailbox at: ideascontests.ideesconcours@forces.gc.ca no later than five (5) calendar days before the CFP closing date.

Eligibility

Applicants must be a legal entity duly incorporated under Canadian federal or provincial law and validly existing in Canada.

Eligible:

• Canadian universities and educational institutions chartered in Canada.
• Incorporated Canadian not-for-profit organizations or associations.
• Incorporated Canadian for-profit companies, organizations, or associations.
• Canadian provincial/territorial, or municipal government organizations.

Not eligible:

• Federal departments, agencies, or Crown corporations