COVID-19: Reducing Airborne Transmission of Respiratory Viruses in Buildings Lacking a Mechanical Ventilation System

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

The National Research Council (NRC) is seeking the Canadian industry to develop and manufacture building technologies and products that can protect occupants by effectively mitigating airborne transmission of respiratory viruses in buildings lacking a mechanical ventilation system.

Challenge sponsor:
National Research Council of Canada (NRC)

Funding mechanism:
Grant

Opening date:
November 25, 2021

Closing date:
December 23, 2021 14:00 Eastern Standard Time

Log in to view your submissions

Prospective applicants should refer to the Innovative Solutions Canada Grant Instructions and Procedures document.

 

Challenge
 

Problem statement

Ventilation is an important layer of protection against COVID-19 transmission in indoor environments. However, many Canadian buildings lack a mechanical ventilation system that can provide outdoor air and/or air cleaning. Examples of these buildings include schools, long term care homes, and heritage buildings. As a result, there has been an emergence of building technologies and products aimed at mitigating airborne transmission of COVID-19 in buildings lacking a mechanical ventilation system. Unfortunately, many of the technologies and products that have emerged throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic lack experimental and field-validation to show they can effectively mitigate airborne transmission of respiratory viruses. In addition, some technologies contain various design flaws that can be detrimental to the health and safety of occupants, making them infeasible solutions. For example, many solutions are too difficult to install/position, too difficult to maintain, too expensive, too energy intensive, not designed optimally in terms of their air intake and exhaust, or result in other unintended negative health consequences (such as the generation of ozone and other contaminants, or produce disruptive levels of noise).

There is a need in the commercial marketplace for alternative building technologies and products that can safely and effectively mitigate airborne transmission of respiratory viruses in buildings lacking a mechanical ventilation system. The proposed solution should be capable of ensuring delivery of clean air to occupied zones both during and after occupancy while maintaining the accessibility and usability of the space.

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The proposed solution must:

  1. Be easy to install and to operate in the field, without major modifications the room.
  2. Be capable of achieving 6 air changes per hour in large spaces with high occupancy and be scalable to room size.
  3. Demonstrate by a cost analysis that reasonable cost targets can be met to support a competitive commercial/market adoption.
  4. Demonstrate by lab test data that the product can inactivate airborne pathogens (e.g. Staphylococcus aureus, ATCC 6538 MS2,Coliphage, etc.)
  5. Demonstrate by lab test data that the products can reduce airborne viral exposure by removing aerosol particles from 0.5 to 20 microns.
  6. Demonstrate that the aerodynamic design of the air intake and discharge of the product can ensure delivery of clean air to occupied zones and avoid directing air exhaled by an infected individual to other occupants.
  7. Demonstrate by lab test data that the product avoids unintended negative consequences, such as,
    1. high noise level generation:
      1. all operational settings must have a noise level below 50 dBA (criteria based on common noise performance data for air purifiers (Reviews of Air Purifiers based on in-depth research 2021)).
    2. volatile organic compound generation:
      1. formaldehyde concentration < 50 µg/m3 or 40 ppb (GoC 2021),
      2. acetaldehyde concentration < 1,420 µg/m3 or 795 ppb (GoC 2021), and
      3. toluene concentration < 15 mg/m3 or 4.0 ppm (GoC 2021).
    3. ozone generation:
      1. Ozone < 40 µg/m3 or 20 ppb (GoC 2021).
  8. Be able to meet ENERGY STAR certification requirements (see related links below).
  9. Be an effective solution for all Canadian climate zones.
  10. Meet Canadian health and environmental standards and relevant regulations (see related links below).
  11. Be wall or ceiling mountable.
  12. Be able to meet Underwriters Laboratories of Canada certification requirements.
  13. Demonstrate, at the end of Phase 2, field efficacy data.

Additional outcomes

The proposed solution should:

  1. Be compatible with existing building technologies (motion sensors, radiative heating/cooling, thermostat, building automation system, etc.), if applicable.
  2. Harvest natural ventilation as much as possible.
  3. Activate in the presence of people.
  4. Be equipped with a timer to allow technology to run before and/or after occupancy.
  5. Have a maintenance system that indicates to users that filters need to be replaced.
  6. Be manufactured in Canada.
  7. Not adversely impact the accessibility and usability of the space.
  8. Lead to scale-up manufacturing with components procured in Canada at the end of Phase 2

Background and context

It has become clear that the risk of COVID-19 transmission is higher in crowded and/or inadequately ventilated spaces, and that a combination of occupant and building related control measures are required to prevent outbreaks. Many organizations have recommended improving ventilation as an important control measure to reduce exposure to exhaled aerosols and other indoor air pollutants during the pandemic. This can usually be achieved by using mechanical ventilation systems to introduce outdoor air to indoor environments, and using recirculation with filtration to remove particulates or other air cleaning technologies. However, improving ventilation can be challenging in buildings lacking a mechanical ventilation system in the Canadian context. It is less than straightforward at the present time to find out how many buildings in Canada do not have a mechanical ventilation system. Some organizations, such as McGill University, have shared information online about how the buildings in use are ventilated, and it can be seen that a large percentage of the buildings on campus at McGill University do not have a mechanical ventilation system. Therefore, it is vital that innovative building technologies and products be developed, and validated, for use in Canadian buildings without a mechanical ventilation system to reduce airborne transmission of respiratory viruses without creating excessive adverse effects on energy consumption or the indoor environment.

The following documents and webpages may be relevant:

Maximum grant value and travel

Multiple grants could result from this Challenge.

Phase 1:

  • The maximum funding available for any Phase 1 Grant resulting from this Challenge is : $150,000.00 CAD
  • The maximum duration for any Phase 1 project funded by a grant resulting from this Challenge is up to 4 months
  • Estimated number of Phase 1 grants: 2

Phase 2:

  • The maximum funding available for any Phase 2 Grant resulting from this Challenge is : $1,000,000 CAD
  • The maximum duration for any Phase 2 project funded by a grant resulting from this Challenge is up to 12 months
    • Note: Only eligible businesses that have completed Phase 1 could be considered for Phase 2.
  • Estimated number of Phase 2 grants: 1
    • Note: Selected companies are eligible to receive one grant per phase per challenge.

This disclosure is made in good faith and does not commit Canada to award any grant for the total approximate funding. Final decisions on the number of Phase 1 and Phase 2 awards will be made by Canada on the basis of factors such as evaluation results, departmental priorities and availability of funds. Canada reserves the right to make partial awards and to negotiate project scope changes.

Travel

Kick-off meeting

A project kick-off meeting will be conducted by video conference or teleconference.

Progress review meeting(s)

Progress review meetings will be conducted by videoconference or teleconference.

During the project, NRC may request a site visit to the applicant's facilities, at NRC's expense, to better understand the technology/manufacturing processes and validate production facilities. Any site will respect pandemic-related health and safety protocols, procedures, and approvals.

Final review meeting

Virtual meeting- A final review meeting will be conducted virtually, via videoconference or teleconference.

The review and evaluation of the proof-of concept to verify fit, comfort and sound reduction of the samples will be conducted by an independent focus group, comprised of participants selected by NRC and its partner agencies, at NRC's expense.

Applicants that demonstrate successful completion of Phase 1 will be invited to submit a proposal for Phase 2. For Phase 2, traveling to the bidder site or NRC might be required.

Eligibility
 

Solution proposals can only be submitted by a small business that meets all of the following criteria:

  • for profit
  • incorporated in Canada (federally or provincially)
  • 499 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) employeesFootnote *
  • research and development activities that take place in Canada
  • 50% or more of its annual wages, salaries and fees are currently paid to employees and contractors who spend the majority of their time working in CanadaFootnote *
  • 50% or more of its FTE employees have Canada as their ordinary place of workFootnote *
  • 50% or more of its senior executives (Vice President and above) have Canada as their principal residenceFootnote *

Evaluation criteria

The applicant must complete the Challenge Stream Electronic Submission Form with a degree of information sufficient to enable Canada's assessment of the proposal against the criteria and the Evaluation Schema. The information must demonstrate how the proposal meets the criterion.

Part 1: Mandatory Criteria

Proposals must meet all mandatory criteria identified by achieving a "Pass" in order to proceed to Part 2. Proposals that do not meet all mandatory criteria will be deemed non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Mandatory Criteria

(Applicant's proposal must address)

Question 1 a: Scope

Describe the proposed solution and demonstrate how it responds to the challenge. Include in your description the scientific and technological basis upon which the solution is proposed and clearly demonstrate how the solution meets all of the Essential (Mandatory) Outcomes (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice.

Evaluation Schema (Mandatory - Pass/Fail)

Pass

The Applicant's proposed solution is clearly articulated, within the scope for the challenge and addresses all Essential (Mandatory) Outcomes (if identified) in the Challenge Notice.

Fail

The proposed solution is articulated as out of scope for the challenge.
OR
The proposal does not clearly demonstrate how the proposed solution addresses all Essential Outcomes listed in the challenge.
OR
The proposed solution is poorly described and does not permit concrete analysis.
OR
There is little to no scientific and/or technological evidence that the proposed solution is likely to meet the challenge.

Question 2: Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
  • Indicate the current TRL of the proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Electronic Submission Form)
  • Describe the research and development activities that have taken place to bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.
Evaluation Schema (Mandatory - Pass/Fail)

Pass: The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution is currently between TRLs 1 and 6 (inclusive), and provided justification by explaining the research and development (R&D) that has taken place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.

Fail: The Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 1 to 6 (inclusive) including:

  • There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment.
  • The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research.
  • The solution is demonstrated at TRL 7 or higher.
  • Insufficient/unclear/no justification explaining the R&D that took place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.
  • The explanation simply paraphrases the description of a given TRL level.
Question 3a: Innovation

Demonstrate how the proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation below:

  • An inventionFootnote *, new technology or new process that is not currently available in the marketplace.
  • Significant modifications to the application of existing technologies/components/processes that are applied in a setting or condition for which current applications are not possible or feasible.
  • An improvement in functionality, cost or performance over an existing technology/process that is considered state-of-the-art or the current industry best practice.
Evaluation Schema (Mandatory – Pass/Fail)

Pass:

The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution meets one or more of the ISC definitions of innovation.

Fail:

  • Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed solution meets any of the ISC definitions of innovation; OR
  • Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution is an incremental improvement, "good engineering", or a technology that would go ahead in the normal course of product development (i.e. the next version or release).
Question 3b: Advance on State of the Art

Describe in detail the competitive advantages and level of advancement over existing technologies. Where appropriate, name existing technologies as well as potential substitutes or competitors.

To demonstrate this, proposals should include the following information:

  • Improvements (minor or major) over existing technologies or substitutes. Use direct comparison.
  • How the proposed innovation will create competitive advantages in existing market niches or market spaces.
Evaluation Schema (Mandatory Criteria – Pass/Fail + Points)

0 points/Fail:

  • The Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed solution advances the state-of-the-art over existing technologies, including available competing solutions; OR
  • The proposed solution improves minimally upon the current state of the art, though not sufficiently enough to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; OR
  • The stated advancements are described in general terms but are not substantiated with specific, measurable evidence.

5 points/Pass:

  • The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one or two minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that have potential to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.

12 points/Pass:

  • The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers three or more minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that together are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; OR
  • The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one significant improvement to existing technologies that is likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches

20 points/Pass:

  • The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers two or more significant improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches and could define new market spaces; OR
  • The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed solution can be considered a new benchmark of state of the art that is clearly ahead of competitors and that is likely to define new market spaces

Part 2: Point-Rated Criteria

Proposals must meet the overall minimum pass mark of 50% to be deemed responsive. Proposals that do not achieve the minimum pass mark will be declared non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Point-Rated Criteria

(Applicant's proposal to address)

Question 1b: Scope

Demonstrate the scientific and technological basis of how the proposed solution addresses the Additional Outcomes (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes section in the Challenge Notice. If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, text entered in this section will not be considered.

If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, Applicants will receive 10 points.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the solution will address any of the Additional Outcomes. 0 points
  2. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 3 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 6 points
  4. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address all (100%) of the Additional Outcomes. 10 points
Question 4: Phase 1 Science and Technology (S&T) Risks

Describe potential scientific and/or technological risks to the successful development of the proof of feasibility and how they will be mitigated in Phase 1.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant has sufficiently considered the risks and defined associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
Question 5: Phase 1 Project Plan

Demonstrate a feasible Phase 1 project plan by completing the table.

  • Indicate if any milestones and activities will be completed concurrently
  • Indicate the estimated exit TRL at the completion of Phase 1. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Electronic Submission Form)
Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate a feasible project plan for Phase 1 and/or the project plan exceeds the maximum duration indicated in the Challenge Notice. 0 points
  2. Project plan for Phase 1 is conceivably feasible but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 10 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates a feasible project plan for Phase 1. 20 points
Question 6: Phase 1 Project Risks

Describe potential project risks to the successful development of the proof of feasibility and how they will be mitigated in Phase 1.

Applicants should address the following risks, as applicable:

  • Human Resources
  • Financial
  • Project Management
  • Intellectual Property
  • Other project-related risks

Note to Applicants: S&T risks should not be included in this section. Question 4 addresses S&T risks.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant has sufficiently considered the risks and defined associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
Question 7: Phase 1 Implementation Team

Demonstrate how the project implementation team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the project plan for Phase 1 by completing the table. A member of the implementation team can have more than one role.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points
  2. Information is provided but there are minor gaps in required management and/or technological skill sets and/or experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 10 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 20 points
Question 8: Inclusivity

If your business were to receive funding from Innovative Solutions Canada, describe what actions (e.g., recruitment strategy, internships, co-op placements, etc.) might be taken in Phase 1 to support the participation of under-represented groups (e.g., women, youth, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, visible minorities) in the research and development of the proposed solution. Each Applicant in their response to this question must focus only on describing relevant programs, policies, or initiatives that it currently has in place or would put in place to support the R&D effort in Phase 1.

Note: Do not provide any personal information of individuals employed by your company or that of your subcontractors in the response.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that would be taken to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups. 0 points
  2. A description and concrete examples of actions to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups provided.5 points
Question 9: Phase 1 Financial Proposal

Demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan by completing the table.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient information provided and/or information provided significantly lack credibility. Does not demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points
  2. Information is provided but some costs lack credibility and/or are unclear for the Phase 1 project plan. 7.5 points
  3. Information provided contains credible elements to clearly demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan. 15 points
Question 10: Phase 1 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight

Describe the financial controls, tracking and oversight that will be used to manage the public funds throughout Phase 1. Applicants should indicate if an individual or firm will be managing the public funds and provide their credentials and/or relevant experience.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant's ability to manage public funds in Phase 1. 0 points
  2. Information provided is vague and/or contains gaps. The Applicant has some controls, tracking and/or oversight in place to manage the public funds in Phase 1. 5 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant has strong financial controls, tracking and oversight to manage public funds in Phase 1. 10 points
Question 11: Phase 2 Overview

Demonstrate a realistic overview for the prototype development plan if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Responses should include:

  • key tasks
  • estimated cost for materials
  • human resources
  • project risks and mitigation strategies

Note: A more detailed proposal will be requested if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant has contemplated a realistic overview for the Phase 2 prototype development. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates a conceivably realistic overview for Phase 2 prototype development, however there are gaps and/or the strategy is vague. 6 points
  3. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant has a clear and realistic overview. 12 points
Question 12: Commercialization Approach

Demonstrate a realistic overall commercialization approach/business model that can successfully take the technology/service to market, and how the technology/service will help you develop and sell other products.

Responses should include:

  • Target markets (excluding Government of Canada)
  • Non-ISC funding sources
  • Transition to a commercially-ready product or service
  • Any other indicators of commercial potential and commercial feasibility

Note: A more detailed proposal will be requested if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential. 0 points
  2. Some information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential, however there are gaps in the commercialization approach. 6 points
  3. A realistic commercialization approach is provided that demonstrates that the proposed solution has commercial potential. 12 points
Question 13: Resulting Benefits to Canada

Describe the benefits that could result from the commercialization of the proposed solution. Applicants should consider the potential benefits using the following three categories and provide justification for each claim:

  • Innovation Benefits: Expected contribution towards the enhancement or development of new industrial or technological innovations within your firm. Responses could include: potential spillover benefits, creation of intellectual property, impact on productivity of the new technology, etc.
  • Economic Benefits: Forecasted impact on the growth of Canadian firms, clusters and supply chains, as well as its expected benefits for Canada's workforce. Responses could include: number of jobs created, number of high-paying jobs, investment in Canada's economy, etc.
  • Public Benefits: Expected contribution to the broader public to the degree that the solution is expected to generate social, environmental, health, security or other benefits to Canada. Responses could include: solution-related environmental benefits, solution-related accessibility benefits, and solution-related impact on Indigenous communities.
Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)

  1. Innovation Benefits

    Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points

    Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1 point

    Benefit is significant and well justified. 2 points

  2. Economic Benefits

    Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points

    Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1 point

    Benefit is significant and well justified. 2 points

  3. Public Benefits.

    Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points

    Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1 point

    Benefit is significant and well justified. 2 points

Questions and answers

All incoming questions regarding this specific challenge should be addressed to solutions@ised-isde.gc.ca.

All enquiries must be submitted in writing no later than ten calendar days before the Challenge Notice closing date. Enquiries received after that time may not be answered.

You can also consult the Frequently asked questions about the Innovative Solutions Canada Program.

A glossary is also available.

Essential Outcome #8 states, "Be able to meet ENERGY STAR certification requirements (see related links below)." Unfortunately, this link is no longer valid. Is there another link you can point me to?

ENERGY STAR for Products

 Report a problem
Date modified: