Plastics challenge: Improving the collection and/or sorting of plastic film and flexible packaging

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

Environment Climate Change Canada is seeking environmentally acceptable and affordable technologies to improve the collection and/or sorting of post-consumer (i.e. business to consumer (B2C)) plastic film, including flexible plastic packaging, to facilitate increased levels of mechanical recycling of these materials and a reduction in associated plastic pollution.

Challenge sponsor:
Environment Climate Change Canada (ECCC)

Funding mechanism:
Grant

Opening date:
September 27, 2023

Closing date:
November 8, 2023, 14:00 Eastern Time

Log in to view your submissions

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

 

Challenge
 

Problem statement

Canada generated approximately 1.4 million tons of plastic filmFootnote 1 in 2019, less than 4% of which was recycled due in part to issues with its collection and sorting. Plastic film is also a common environmental pollutant, with film-based items like food wrappers and plastic bags being among the most frequently collected litter on Canada's shorelines.

Due in part to issues with sorting, film and flexible plastics are not typically included in curbside collection. While improvements in sorting processes may lead to these materials being compatible with existing collection methods for other plastics, these collection methods may need to be adapted to ensure the effective and convenient collection of flexible plastics.

If collected and transported to material recovery facilities (MRFs), or beyond to mechanical recycling facilities, film and flexible packaging can disrupt normal operations by clogging and damaging sorting machinery. While advanced technology exists to sort plastic film and flexible packaging, current options are often too expensive for smaller facilities to implement (e.g. advanced optical sorting machines and artificial intelligence equipped machines/robotics) and, if implemented, can be burdensome to maintain (e.g. film vacuum systems).

As multi-material flexibles with chemically different components (such as metals or other plastics) can be difficult to distinguish from more easily recyclable mono-material flexibles, it can be challenging to ensure that similar types of flexible materials are baled together. Due to the issues associated with sorting, bales of film are often also highly contaminated by other materials, including other plastics, metals and paper; similarly, film is a prevalent contaminant in bales of other plastics. This contamination results in a low market value for the sorted materials, leading to the widespread landfilling of plastics.

As most Canadian provinces transition to full producer responsibility programs for packaging (i.e., extended producer responsibility (EPR)), with ambitious collection and recycling targets for films and flexibles, there is a need for innovation to optimize the capture rate of films and flexibles (including multilaminates) from consumers, in MRFs and at recycling facilities. Additionally, incoming recycled content requirements are expected to increase market demand for post-consumer resin (PCR) and make it critical to find affordable solutions to reduce current rates of bale contamination, while increasing the quality and quantity of recycled resin.

This Challenge seeks innovative solutions to the issues of collection and sorting of film, including flexible packaging, that will help boost recycling rates and move Canada closer to a circular economy for plastics.

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential (mandatory) outcomes

The proposed solution must:

  1. Be an environmentally acceptable and economically viable solution to improve the collection and/or sorting of post-consumer film, including flexible and multilaminate plastic packaging
  2. If a sorting solution, support the separation of multi-material and mono-material flexible packaging
  3. Demonstrate the potential to increase the quality of recycled resins from flexible packaging such that the recycled resin is suitable for use in film or other packaging products
  4. Demonstrate the potential to increase the net volume of flexible packaging material recycled

Additional outcomes

The proposed solution should:

  1. Be low maintenance when in operation
  2. Where proposed solutions include sorting technologies, be applicable within facilities operating on a smaller scale (e.g. in rural or remote communities)
  3. Be compatible with conventional at-home (e.g. blue bin) recycling collection methods or make minor adjustments to these methods to facilitate the collection process

Background and context

Flexible packaging includes items such as rolls of shrink film, stretch film, and other film intended to be applied to products for packaging purposes. Discrete forms of flexible packaging include containers that are likely to change shape when contents are added or removed, such as bags, pouches, tubes, and sachets. Flexibles also include beverage containers (e.g., juice pouches), waste bags, and flexible foam packaging such as polyethylene foam.

Flexible packaging is the fastest growing plastic packaging category, according to the Ellen Macarthur Foundation, and its recycling rates in Canada are comparatively low when compared to those of other forms of plastic. Canada generated approximately 1.4 million tons of film in 2019, less than 4% of which was recycled due to its low value, the challenge of separating film from multi-material multilayer packaging designs and issues with collection and sorting. If it does reach a MRF, film and flexible packaging can disrupt normal operations by clogging and damaging sorting machinery. The lack of appropriate sorting technology can lead to low quality, low-value recyclate with limited, if any, market.

While upstream solutions are key to reducing problematic plastic packaging (such as the elimination of unnecessary single-use flexible packaging, transitioning multi-material flexible packaging towards mono-material alternatives and the expansion of reusable packaging) it is not possible to completely move away from single-use flexible packaging without negative unintended consequences such as food waste (e.g. certain oxygen or moisture-sensitive foods require packaging with high barrier properties)Footnote 2. As a result, there is a critical need to address the limitations of current Canadian systems to collect and sort film and flexible packaging for recycling, in order to increase the overall capacity to recirculate these materials.

Innovative solutions are required to address barriers to the broader collection of film and flexibles, and to develop functional, cost-effective sorting technologies for these materials to facilitate increased quantities of high-quality recycled resin.

The Government recognises the importance of innovation in addressing plastic waste and preventing pollution. Through the Canadian Plastics Innovation Challenge program, the government has provided funding to Canadian businesses to spur innovation and the development of technologies that address issues such as difficult to recycle plastic film food packaging and the separation of mixed plastics.

Canada is committed to protecting the environment while supporting businesses and Canadians transition towards a zero plastic waste future. Improving the recycling process for flexible plastics both supports this commitment and aligns with forthcoming policy measures, including regulatory targets for recycled content and labelling for plastic packaging and a pollution prevention plan for food-contact packaging.

Federal, provincial, and territorial governments are also working together through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) to achieve zero plastic waste and transition to a circular economy for plastics in Canada. Working with partners from every stage of the plastics lifecycle, Canada aims to keep plastic in the economy and out of landfills and the environment.

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 6 months
  • Estimated number of Phase 1 grants: 3

Phase 2:

  • The maximum funding available for any Phase 2 Grant resulting from this Challenge is : $1,000,000.00 CAD
  • The maximum duration for any Phase 2 project funded by a grant resulting from this Challenge is up to 24 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

No travel is anticipated in Phase 1.

Kick-off meeting

All communication will take place by telephone or videoconference.

Progress review meeting(s)

Any progress review meetings will be conducted by telephone or videoconference.

Final review meeting

All communication will take place by telephone or videoconference.

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.

Mandatory Criteria

(Bidder's proposal must address)

Question 1 a: Scope

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

Evaluation Schema (Mandatory — Pass/Fail)

Pass

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

Fail

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

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

Pass

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

Fail

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

  1. There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment.
  2. The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research.
  3. The solution is demonstrated at TRL 7 or higher.
  4. Insufficient/unclear/no justification explaining the R&D that took place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.
  5. 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:

  1. An invention*, new technology or new process that is not currently available in the marketplace.
  2. 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.
  3. An improvement in functionality, cost or performance over an existing technology/process that is considered state-of-the-art or the current industry best practice.

* An "invention" is defined for the purposes of ISC as: "A manufacturing design or any other new and useful improvement that is new or novel, that is, not commonly known or not an obvious derivative of an existing way of doing things."

Evaluation Schema (Mandatory — Pass/Fail)

Pass

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

Fail

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

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

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

To demonstrate this, proposals should include the following information:

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

0 points/Fail:

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

5 points/Pass:

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

12 points/Pass

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

20 points/Pass:

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

Part 2: Point-Rated Criteria

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

Point-Rated Criteria

(Bidder's proposal to address)

Question 1b: Scope

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

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

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  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 Bidder has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that the Bidder has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Bidder has sufficiently considered the risks and defined associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
Question 5: Phase 1 Project Plan

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

  • Indicate if any milestones and activities will be completed concurrently
  • Indicate the estimated exit TRL at the completion of Phase 1. (Drop Down Menu of the Challenge Stream Electronic Submission Form)
Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  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.

Bidders should address the following risks, as applicable:

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

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

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

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

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  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 Bidder in their response to this question must focus only on describing relevant programs, policies, or initiatives that it currently has in place or would put in place to support the R&D effort in Phase 1.

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

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  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. Bidders should indicate if an individual or firm will be managing the public funds and provide their credentials and/or relevant experience.

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

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

Responses should include:

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

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

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Bidder 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 Bidder has a clear and realistic overview. 12 points
Question 12: Commercialization Approach

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

Responses should include:

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

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

Evaluation Schema (Point-Rated)
  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. Bidders should consider the potential benefits using the following three categories and provide justification for each claim:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

 Report a problem
Date modified: