This interview is part of our series on Canada’s infrastructure moment and its impact on the geospatial/geomatics sector.

Canada is on the cusp of a generational infrastructure shift, with the federal government pledging 5% of GDP toward national defence, civil preparedness, and industrial capacity. Within that, a substantial 1.5% is earmarked for building critical infrastructure — creating what many see as a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the geospatial, digital, and spatial data sectors.

But will Canadian small and medium-sized tech companies be ready — or even eligible — to participate?

Over the coming weeks, GoGeomatics will explore this question through a series of interviews with leaders across Canada’s geospatial, AI, infrastructure, and innovation communities. Our focus: the evolving role of procurement in enabling domestic innovation, resilience, and SME inclusion.

We begin the series with Nicholas Kellett, a seasoned geospatial entrepreneur based in Ottawa and founder of Deploy Solutions. Drawing from years of experience navigating federal RFP systems and building climate-focused software, Nick offers a candid look at how procurement policy often fails SMEs—and what a smarter, more inclusive model could look like.

The focus of this conversation is Canada’s new defence and infrastructure commitment—especially the 1.5% dedicated to infrastructure. But there are procurement concerns. Many feel Canadian tech isn’t valued, and the government defaults to safer options like foreign companies. Do you think our procurement systems are ready for this scale and urgency?

I think they can be. The proof is in how the government responded during the COVID pandemic. They were able to put money in business and individual pockets very quickly. We benefited from that relief—it was effective and efficient. If you met basic criteria, the money was deposited into your bank account. The details were sorted out later.

That model could work again. It’s an excellent way to help small businesses, especially geospatial ones, during uncertain times. Procurement is effective at supporting early-stage tech. We’ve seen that firsthand. But as companies move toward commercialization, things get harder. There’s a risk of developing what are called “technology orphans.”

Mechanisms like Export Development Canada can help bridge that commercialization gap. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Let’s break down barriers and get money into businesses’ hands for producing needed work —while still protecting taxpayer money.

That’s a compelling analogy — COVID as a procurement model. But this isn’t a pandemic. It’s about sovereignty, borders, and data. We have never faced this kind of threat before. And even without today’s geopolitics, there’s a persistent sense that Canadian tech isn’t valued. Do you agree? And how do we shift?

Nick: I do. And I’d argue this moment is just as urgent as COVID. Climate change and geopolitical instability are global crises. The international rules-based order—what Canada has championed since World War II—is unraveling.

So yes, the government should treat this as seriously as possible. A COVID-style mechanism, even with smaller funding amounts, is a good model. Personally, I haven’t struggled with government traction, but I’ve heard others have. Having the government as an anchor tenant — even in small, regular ways — would help enormously.

The Canadian geospatial industry is uniquely complex. You’ve got the challenges of new tech, physical sciences, sensors, climate change, and global instability. It’s like playing Jenga. We keep stacking uncertainty, and then expect small companies to thrive.

Big companies will manage. But smaller ones? We’re hunter-gatherers. We don’t have time to plant seeds for next spring — we just have to make it through the winter. If we can’t hunt it, we don’t eat.

That’s why procurement cycles and payment models need to change. Six to nine months for an RFP decision, then three more for payment? That cash flow model just doesn’t work.

Do you think it makes a difference when someone in government has industry experience? Especially when designing procurement systems?

Yes, because they think differently. They understand what it’s like to be on the ground. They know how risky and thinly resourced startups are. And again, if the government could provide consistent, modest contracts, it would smooth out the existential uncertainty so many of us face.

We also need to think about open source. If we’re talking about digital sovereignty, then we need infrastructure we can control. If the government provides grants or loans, it should ask companies to contribute to open-source geospatial tools. That’s taxpayer value. These tools won’t become orphans. They’ll be built on, reused, and trusted.

Are you seeing that requirement — open standards, open source, Canadian software — reflected in current RFPs?

Not often in Canada. I’ve seen it in the UK and Europe. I’m not saying it never happens here, but I rarely come across it.

Are there at least conversations in that direction?

Yes. A few months ago, I believe PSPC [Public Services and Procurement Canada] conducted a government-wide survey to gather procurement feedback. They were asking exactly the questions you’re asking now. That was before the digital sovereignty debate really heated up — but it shows the government is thinking.

I started filling it out, but didn’t finish. Not because I didn’t want to — but because I was just too busy trying to make payroll. That’s a gap. Even when the government asks for input, small businesses might not have the capacity to respond.

Consider this — we often lose bids not because of our ideas, but because we don’t have time to polish the proposal. If we had 12 more hours, we could do something amazing. But we’re choosing between paying bills and writing proposals. It’s a gamble.

What could fix that?

A few things:

• Give small companies bonus points if they have a track record.
• Use a two-stage process: first assess eligibility, then provide feedback before final submissions to let respondents refine the proposal.
• Make programs regular and predictable, so if you miss one round, you can anticipate the next.

Big RFPs often go to one consortium of three or four companies. That will leave other responding consortia (maybe a dozen or more Canadian companies) with nothing. You don’t know when the next opportunity will come. It’s hard to recover from that.

One could argue that this is due to limited project funding opportunities, but there are ways around that. In the UK, the leading consortium secures the core contract, while smaller ones are awarded additional projects. Everyone stays engaged.

If you could give one recommendation for procurement reform, what would it be?

Flip the intent. Don’t just pick a few big winners. Ask: how do we get money and input from as many Canadian companies as possible?

Put money in their pockets—even small amounts. Set clear objectives and constraints. Make open-source contributions mandatory. You reduce risk. If a big contract goes off the rails after two years, it’s too late. Act fast. Spread the investment.

This is about national resilience and infrastructure. Most data — by some estimates 80-90% — is geospatial. This work is complex and specialized. Why aren’t we bringing everyone to the table?

Look at the STAC standard. A few companies collaborated to create something that everyone now uses. No one told them to. We could do the same for infrastructure. Define schemas for climate risk assessments. Build a Canadian standard. But to do that, people need time to work — and to get that, they need funding.

A COVID-style government response could do that. Get money to experts. Ask for deliverables. Require open contributions. We should move fast and expect results.

Do you see fragmentation across federal, provincial, and municipal procurement as a barrier?

Yes. I’m based in Ottawa and have experience with federal systems. But even those constantly change. SAP Ariba was big a few years ago — now not so much. You spend years learning, and then it shifts.

If you’re not in Ottawa, it may be even harder. Provinces like B.C. have their own systems. Municipal procurement is inconsistent. A unified “one-window” approach would help.

Do you think the government has the technical capacity to assess all this innovation fairly?

Yes and no. I have a high opinion of Canadian bureaucrats. They’re technically sharp and have access to technology experts. The problem is when procurement gets too prescriptive — “You must build XYZ.” That shuts out innovation and rewards incumbents.

Define the problem. Let industry propose solutions. Then just make sure deliverables happen, taxes are paid, and jobs are created. That’s enough.

I’m glad these questions are being asked. Canada and our geospatial community is at a pivotal moment. We can all contribute, but I worry government support won’t move fast enough—but it’s proven it can. I hope we apply the same urgency as we did during COVID.