A Service That Connects Test Facility Search to Procurement Evidence

1,627 test infrastructures are opening

The National K-Testbed (국가 K-테스트베드) is a Korean programme that lets companies use facilities and equipment from public and private institutions to test products in real-world conditions. Its second-half 2026 call runs from September 9 to October 6. Eighty-two institutions are opening 1,627 infrastructure assets, including facilities, installations, and equipment (Korea Water Resources Corporation, 2026).

There are three application tracks. Research and development advances a technology with an institution. Simple demonstration lets a company test its product directly. Technology and product performance verification runs a product in real conditions and verifies its performance.

Companies choose a participating institution and desired infrastructure on the National K-Testbed platform, then apply online. The basic documents are a participation application and a proposal. Depending on the infrastructure, applicants may also need a company introduction, technical documents, or safety and security materials.

Selected companies negotiate the terms, sign a contract, and run the test. They then submit a final report. In the performance verification track, a company may receive a performance verification certificate after an institutional assessment (Gwangju Metropolitan City business support programme guide, 2026).

An open facility does not make every step free. Companies generally bear testing costs. Even after selection, schedules may be delayed or a suitable infrastructure assignment may not be available because of facility operations. The institution providing the facility is not required to buy the product.

A performance verification certificate can support preparation for public-sector supply, but it is not a purchase guarantee. A company must separately apply for an Innovative Product designation assessment. Products with a performance verification certificate are exempt from review and receive full marks only for the 20-point “pilot-use implementation capability” assessment item.

See where the work breaks, then connect it in one line

Imagine the head of a 12-person industrial leak-detection sensor company. The product works, but the company has no record of long-term testing at a site with real conditions, such as a water treatment plant or large pipeline. That makes it hard to explain performance to a public institution buyer.

The company first pulls out the waterproof rating, communication range, installation method, power requirements, and required pipeline conditions from the product documentation. With that information open beside them, they search multiple institutions on the National K-Testbed platform, then copy each candidate facility’s region, equipment, and usage conditions into a separate document.

If facility descriptions do not make costs, available dates, or permission to install sensors clear, the company has to open attachments or contact the person in charge. If one facility is unsuitable, it sends the same product description to another institution, then revises its candidate list after receiving an answer.

Even after choosing a facility, the work does not flow through. The company must enter company and product information again across the participation application and proposal, find and attach institution-specific documents, and manually compare file versions and entered information because changes are difficult after final submission.

After selection, another record-keeping process begins. The company negotiates installation dates, contacts, costs, and safety conditions. During testing, it collects measurements, photos, and incident records, then reorganises them into the final-report format. After receiving a performance verification certificate, it must separately examine Innovative Product designation requirements and retrieve the same technical materials and test results again.

That creates the first service opportunity. A company could enter product size, operating environment, required tests, preferred region, and timing once. The service could show candidate infrastructure, why each candidate may fit, and which costs, timelines, and safety conditions are still unconfirmed. If it has no direct connection to the official platform, it should not promise to complete an application. It can instead provide an application draft and a checklist that the user can transfer to the official screen.

The second opportunity is records before and after the test. If performance targets written in the application flow directly into the test plan, field measurement items, photo names, and final-report outline, staff need to move the same content across fewer files. Recording who measured what on each test day and how far results differed from targets keeps the record intact even when the person in charge changes.

The third opportunity comes after performance verification. A service can collect the performance verification certificate, test results, product rights, and manufacturing-readiness materials in one place. It can distinguish items already satisfied from items that still need preparation for an Innovative Product application. Facility approval, safety decisions, actual measurement, institutional performance assessment, and the Innovative Product designation decision still require people. The service must not guarantee a purchase.

Overseas programmes design the test and the next contract together

Canada’s Innovative Solutions Canada testing stream connects Canadian companies with late-stage prototypes to federal institutions that need products to test. The institution and company set minimum test requirements and an evaluation plan together. The government provides research and testing contracts of up to about KRW 1.1 billion per non-defence project and about KRW 2.4 billion per defence project (Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada).

MarineLabs Data Systems, a marine technology company, received a contract in 2022 and installed equipment that transmits real-time video of marine conditions across 16 test sites on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The process did not stop at introducing locations. It combined test requirements, contracts, and field evaluation. In 2024–2025, 85 projects across the full testing stream received contracts worth about KRW 58.3 billion.

The United Kingdom’s Small Business Research Initiative has public institutions first publish problems to solve, then commission phased development contracts from companies. It moves from early feasibility work to prototype development and field testing. Rather than companies paying an entry fee, public institutions pay development costs through contracts.

From 2008 to 2016, the programme ran 325 calls and 2,634 contracts, with 62% of contract funding going to small and medium-sized enterprises (UK government official review report). But among the reviewed programmes, only one of four that completed testing led to a follow-on purchase by the commissioning institution at that time. This shows that preserving test records and connecting those records to an actual purchasing process are separate problems.

Four things you could build from this

1. A guide that finds test facilities from product conditions

• What it does: It filters infrastructure that is likely to fit after users enter the product’s installation environment and test objectives. It shows missing conditions and questions to ask the responsible institution.
• Who uses it: Manufacturing companies with 20 or fewer employees that make factory sensors or environmental measurement equipment but have not tested in an operating facility.
• Why now: With 1,627 infrastructure assets opening across 82 institutions, companies have more options but still need to narrow them down for their own product first.
• First screen: Fields for product type, size, power source, installation location, required test, preferred region, and timing.

2. An application-preparation workspace that reduces repeated entry

• What it does: It collects company and product information once, distributes it into participation application and proposal drafts, and manages institution-specific documents and pre-submission checks.
• Who uses it: Technology companies where a chief executive or researcher, rather than a dedicated business-planning staff member, is writing a National K-Testbed application for the first time.
• Why now: Changes are difficult after online submission, and requirements beyond the basic documents vary by infrastructure, creating room for mistakes during the final file check.
• First screen: The selected institution, deadline, documents in progress, missing items, and a final pre-submission check button.

3. A field-test logbook

• What it does: It turns application performance targets into field measurement items, then carries daily figures, photos, incidents, and corrective actions through to the final report.
• Who uses it: The project lead at an equipment company where facility staff, in-house researchers, and external installation technicians run field tests together.
• Why now: Performance verification is assessed from field records. When photos and measurements are scattered across phones, documents, and email, the report has to be rebuilt.
• First screen: Today’s test items, target values, measurement entry, photo capture, issue logging, and responsible-person confirmation.

4. A public-supply dashboard after performance verification

• What it does: It shows the steps and materials needed after performance verification for Innovative Product designation, and packages test materials for reuse in the next application.
• Who uses it: Industrial product manufacturers that have received a performance verification certificate but have no procurement specialist and do not know the next process.
• Why now: The certificate reduces one 20-point assessment item, but a separate application and the remaining review still remain. Work breaks again at this point.
• First screen: The current stage, materials already available, remaining conditions, next action, and the official application destination in order.

Why this matters where you are

Korea’s National K-Testbed is shaped by Korean public infrastructure, performance verification, and Innovative Product designation rules. In your own market, check whether test facilities, applications, field evidence, and public purchasing are handled by separate systems. Even where the institutions differ, the repeated work of matching a product to a facility, preparing documents, and preserving test evidence can be examined as a service opportunity.

What to check in 30 minutes today

Choose one product you want to test and find three candidate infrastructures on the National K-Testbed. If, at two or more of the three sites, you cannot learn at least one of the following without opening a separate attachment or making an inquiry—cost, available period, installation restrictions, additional documents, or contact details—it may be worth testing a small service that connects facility search and application preparation.