There is no page or word limit. Please keep your proposal as concise as possible, while still reasonably addressing the project requirements.

No, but the tool must support an older free/legacy dataset, supplemented with data made available from ACS GCIPR members (see also questions 8.10. /8.11).

The final tool will be hosted by the ACS GCIPR on our tools page and the tool will be open source.

Q: Will there be payments beyond the 150k for those updates if managed by the contracted company/person? Will ACS take on operational costs if needed?
A: Maintenance is not included with the 150k. Vendor should include estimate for annual maintenance.

Q: How will updates work for the various private companies? Will they self update or is it vendor supported?
A: This will need to be negotiated with each company that wishes to arrange for a private deployment.

1. Q: Expected number of users?
   A: The Excel-based tool on the ACS website averages 57 downloads a month, which is an unknown combination of new and returning users. For the public version of the new tool, we estimate 50-200 monthly users.
2. Q: Does the $150,000 cover licensing fee costs for third party data used?
   A: No, but the tool must support an older free/legacy dataset, supplemented with data made available from ACS GCIPR members (see also questions 10. /8.11).
3. How will updates be navigated?
   1. Q: Will there be payments beyond the 150k for those updates if managed by the contracted company/person? Will ACS take on operational costs if needed?
      A: Maintenance is not included with the 150k. Vendor should include estimate for annual maintenance.
   2. Q: How will updates work for the various private companies? Will they self update or is it vendor supported?
      A: This will need to be negotiated with each company that wishes to arrange for a private deployment.

1. What are the key problems or limitations you are facing with the current Excel tool?
   A: The Excel tool has several limitations including sluggishness, ease of handling of data entry errors, version control, and benchmarking.
2. What features are critical to maintain from the current version?
   A: Speed and simplicity of data entry, hotspot reporting, public accessibility, flexibility for different process topologies, seed charge recycling, and a troubleshooting guide that notifies users if they have made common data-entry errors.
3. Q: What is the estimated size of a process analysis (e.g., number of steps and compounds per step), and what is the worst-case scenario?
   A: The new tool should not have a hard limit for process size, because flexibility to represent a process in different ways and adapt to new chemical modalities is important for adoption. That said, a typical process might have 10-30 steps and 50-200 unique process inputs.
4. Q: Can you provide a completed example of the PCI-LCA Tool (from the blank template provided on the ACS GCIPR site, see link) to demonstrate the current PMI-LCA calculations and functionality?
   A: Yes – an example file (PMI-LCA Public Example.xlsx) has been posted on the challenge page.
5. Q: Is the expectation that all versions the tool be identical for (a) open-access public version; (b) blinded members-only platform, and (c) private firewalled versions for each member company? Or can the (a) open-access public version be simplified with more limited data and/or functionality? A: They should be sufficiently similar to permit benchmarking of results. The public version will not require integration with other networked tools or services, while members-only versions may require integrations – to be negotiated with each company that wishes to arrange for a private deployment. The vendor should indicate its willingness to engage with such requests.

1. Q: What are the user-load and performance requirements (concurrent users, calculation throughput, uptime requirements)? A: See Q 1.1 and 2.3.
2. Q: Relating to User Requirement 9.2
   What are examples for user-defined categories? A: See Q 9.2.
3. Relating to User Requirement 9.1
   Q: What is the goal of adding additional information such as cost of goods? A: Adding optional data like cost of goods, transport distances, utilities, and HVAC makes the PMI-LCA tool more valuable by capturing hidden environmental impacts, linking sustainability with cost, and enabling scenario analysis.
4. Q: Relating to User Requirement 7.1
   Please further specify this requirement. What parameters and what calculation does it refer to? A: This requirement refers to default input settings for core PMI and LCA parameters, such as material quantities, process steps, and standard LCA inputs, needed to calculate PMI and basic life cycle impacts. Defaults should allow a complete calculation without forcing users to disable advanced options like manual calculations.
5. Q: Relating to User Requirement 5.1:
   Is the calculation limited to specific cases, or can variables be used across multiple process steps? A: Each process is independent, but within a process, flexible equation entry is preferred. No strict variable scoping; users can define relationships as needed.
6. Q: Relating to User Requirement 1.1:
   Please specify and provide context to “process topologies”. A: Refers to the tool’s ability to handle linear, convergent syntheses, multiple output streams, and recycle streams. Basically, the shape of the “graph” that is defined using process steps as nodes and material flows as edges.
7. Q: Relating to User Requirement 31.1:
   Please further specify this requirement. Are ecoinvent values considered not sufficiently accurate? A: This requirement refers to LCIA emission factors used in the PMI-LCA tool. Standard ecoinvent values do not reflect the higher purity, stricter specifications, and intensive processing of pharmaceutical-grade materials.
8. Q: Relating to User Requirement 28.1
   Can you give examples for different levels of plant integration and circular economy performance reflected in emission factors?A: The currently envisioned emissions factors to be used for the online PMI-LCA tool primarily do not focus on circular economy performances but rather enable calculating “circularity metrics” such as solvent recycling rates based on the PMI and solvent intensity from API manufacturing information put into the tool. Somewhat separately, the idea for 28.1 would be to have an option for users or administrators to add more refined emission factors if available (or add custom materials with those emission factors). These factors might incorporate circularity on their own, or by discounting them by a recycle ratio, similar to how the indicator values for the special metals category materials are pre-multiplied by a recycling factor.
9. Q: Relating to User Requirement 20.1
   Please specify the requirements for “Recycling of main step product”. Is additional modeling required? A: Recycling rates should be able to be calculated based on mass balance (inputs and outputs) of each synthesis step. The requirement for recycling of main step product relates to crystallization seed charges in which a step to crystallize an intermediate or API is ‘seeded’ (nucleated) with a small charge of the expected crystal product (pulled from a prior batch). To avoid a chicken-and-egg problem, this is treated as a recycle calculation. Because seeded crystallizations would typically occur toward the end of a process, they can have an unintuitively large impact on the required scale of all upstream steps.  The current Excel tool is capable of this calculation.Per User Requirement 22.1, It would be beneficial for the new tool to handle recycling of side streams or co-products (i.e., solvent waste which could be recycled by distillation, or directly re-used in another step). The same applies for other mass flows (wastes) from a process step that might undergo recycling instead of waste treatment.  Additional modeling should not be required to meet this requirement. 
10. Q: Relating to User Requirement 25.1
    Please specify if there is an alternative approach in case no suitable methods to eliminate data gaps can be found. For example, if users should be able to create and store instructions how to eliminate data gaps, similar to the approach outlined in #23.1 A: Several ways to close data gaps exist, a hierarchy or decision tree should be available for the user from which different options can be chosen. The current excel-based PMI-LCA tool works in the same way, a brief explanation is available in the introduction to educate users on how to deal with data gaps.

1. Who are the current users of the tool, and what is their anticipated skill level?
   A: Industry process development scientists and graduate students.
2. Do you anticipate multiple levels of users or permissions (e.g., base user vs. manager)?
   A: Two levels: admin and general user.
3. Will users need to share access to scenarios with other users of the tool?
   A: Sharing scenarios may be necessary meet the requirement 40.1 for process comparison. However, sharing access with other users of the tool should only be possible within private deployments for users that work for the same company to avoid sharing confidential synthesis information between companies by mistake.
4. How many users are anticipated, and what security permissions or parameters are required?
   A: For estimated number of users, see Q 1.1. Data security standards apply (see 6 and 12.3) and security auditing may be required for private deployments, to be negotiated individually. The tool should support SSO authentication (see 5.7).
5. Q: How many scientists from the focus team should be involved in the collaboration, and what is their availability for input and testing?
   A: To be discussed. There is willingness to share input and test a “dev-version” of an online PMI-LCA tool in development.

1. Is ACS expecting the vendor to host/manage the shared platform/webapp, or just deliver deployable code and documentation for ACS IT to manage?
   A: ACS GCIPR web vendor will host; interested member companies will host or use their cloud vendors.
2. If the vendor hosts on ACS platform, should budget consider pricing for support beyond 18 months?
   A: Annual maintenance is separate from the $150,000 budget.
3. If vendor hosts on their platform, what are the expected uptime, SLAs, and support requirements?
   A: Not applicable; app should be deployment-agnostic (e.g., Docker container).
4. For member company private deployments, who is responsible for IT and hosting?
   A: Up to individual agreements between member companies and vendor.
5. What is the “scope boundary” for vendor vs. member company?
   A: Vendor builds the tool and provides deployment artifacts; member companies provision infrastructure, configure SSO, manage security/compliance, and maintain internal databases.
6. Q: Are there specific cloud platforms, security standards, or compliance requirements (e.g., GDPR, SOX, FDA 21 CFR Part 11) that must be met?
   A: Yes – the tool should be hostable on cloud platforms such as Azure and AWS (for example a docker container would nice but not required). Company-specific hosted copies of the tool will have to go through their own IT risk assessment process. The tool does not need to meet GMP data standards. The tool should not request or retain any personal data on users. See also 3.
7. Q: For the members-only platform, Requirement 58.1 states that Single Sign-On (SSO) should be possible. Does the Roundtable have a preferred identity provider or authentication protocol (e.g., SAML 2.0, OpenID Connect), and should these be configurable per company? A: These should be configurable per company to support private deployments. For ACS, we have a SSO called ACS ID which uses SAML2.0.
8. Q: What audit trail and change-management capabilities are required for regulatory compliance? A: No regulatory-scope data will be stored within the tool. An audit trail is not required.
9. Q: Does ACS GCI have existing deployment infrastructure for this tool? If not, should we implement it, who should maintain it going forward, and is there a preference for cloud infrastructure vs. on-premise? A: The ACS version of the tool will be deployed by the ACS current cloud services vendor (AWS). Maintenance of hosting is the responsibility of the ACS. Maintenance of the tool is to be negotiated in this proposal.
10. For the baseline version that will be setup for ACS, is the idea then each member company will fork out baseline version and customize it as per their requirements? Will vendor support customization requests from companies, or is that out-of-scope? A: Up to individual agreements between member companies and vendor, but vendor should specify if they would be willing to support these requests. (e.g., integration with electronic lab notebooks, dashboards, etc.)

Based on recent discussions, and the potential challenges associated with licensing lifecycle data and dataset updates, or potential security complications associated with linking external APIs to e.g., Reaxys into the tool, we recognize that it may not be feasible for the tool to include these features. In that case, the ACS GCI will start developing the online tool with existing (older) ecoinvent data that was made available for the tool, supplemented with internally developed datasets for certain raw materials in API manufacturing. The user requirements around adding specific emission factors or indicators will be relaxed, so that it is sufficient that there is a mechanism for users or tool administrators to add new emission factors later, or custom materials with refined emission factor values, possibly including the ability to discount a material’s emission factors by a circularity ratio, similar to how the indicator values for the ‘special metals’ are discounted by a recycling ratio in the current Excel tool.

1. Is the industry prepared for annual licensing fees related to background databases?
   A: Yes.
2. Should budget consider pricing for hosting beyond 18 months?
   A: Annual maintenance is separate from the $150,000 budget.
3. Q: How should potential cost overruns be handled if unforeseen technical challenges arise? A: Any cost overruns must be communicated proactively and receive approval from the ACS GCIPR. The expectation is that there will be no cost overruns. In the worst case, certain features may need to be scaled back, but only with prior GCIPR approval.
4. Q: The proposal notes funding up to $150,000. Must this be fully inclusive of all potential third-party licensing fees—for example, access to LCI databases (e.g., ecoinvent) and possible API access to services like Reaxys to facilitate the iGAL 2.0 checker?
   A: See above.
5. Q: Should the project budget account for ongoing hosting and maintenance of the public and members-only platforms after the 18-month development period, or will ACS assume these operational costs upon project completion?
   A: ACS will be responsible for hosting the public version. Member companies may wish to discuss private deployments individually with the vendor. See also FAQ for maintenance budget.
6. Q: What is the anticipated payment schedule for the award (e.g., milestone-based deliverables, quarterly installments)?
   A: Milestone-based deliverables 
7. Q: What are the licensing requirements and costs for accessing LCI databases, and who is responsible for these fees?
   A: See above.
8. Q: We noted the funding of up to $150,000 for tool development. Is there additional funding for annual/on-going licensing/data fees? A: See above.
9. Q: Relating to User Requirement 21.1
   Is there an agreement ensuring (free-of-charge) access to such commercial DB such as Reaxys? Background is the intent to offer the application free of charge. A: No there is not, it would be up to the vendor to manage licensing in this case.
10. Q: Emission Factor Updates (Requirement 24.1): Is a secure administrative interface for the focus team to manage emission-factor updates themselves considered within scope? A: Such an option would be desired.

1. What is the legal structure for the engagement (contractor, joint venture, or licensing agreement)?
   A: Contractor with ACS.
2. Are there restrictions on the vendor’s ability to leverage the technology for other projects or clients after completion?
   A: No restrictions
3. Q: Can the development team include international members or subcontractors, or must all work be performed within specific geographic regions? A: No restrictions. 
4. Q: Are there restrictions on using third-party libraries, frameworks, or databases in the development? A: Third-party libraries are fine, but it is up to the vendor to manage any library-specific licensing and use requirements and restrictions. 
5. Q: Can the vendor reference this project in their portfolio and marketing materials? A: Yes.
6. Q: Should the public-facing, open-access tool be released under a specific open-source license, or should it remain proprietary and hosted by ACS? A: We are open to considering vendor proposals on this topic.
7. Q: Should the final tool be open-source, proprietary to ACS GCI, or available under specific licensing terms? A: We are open to considering vendor proposals on this topic.
8. Q: Can part of the app be open-sourced to enhance transparency and address third-party concerns about proprietary data, supporting the goal of a single, universal alignment solution? A: This is fine, we are open to considering vendor proposals on this topic.
9. Would intellectual property rights be protected if we were to propose to integrate IP into a solution?  For example, we prohibit the redistribution, sale, or input or use of our IP into AI algorithms, among other restricted purposes. A: Vendors are free to use their own IP elsewhere. Vendors may not limit our use of IP that we contribute to the tool. Vendors may not use or access IP-related to data that is entered into the tool.

1. How often does ACS prefer updates to be pushed through?
   A: Bug fixes and dataset updates should be differentiated; update frequency is up to the vendor to propose.
2. If ACS updates the shared tool (bug fixes, new database releases), how will private copies get updates?
   A: Up to individual agreements between member companies and vendor.
3. Do companies want to self-update or expect vendor support?
   A: Up to individual agreements between member companies and vendor.
4. Should the vendor provide long-term maintenance or is the expectation “one-time delivery”?
   A: Long-term maintenance is preferred, we are open to considering vendor proposals.
5. Q: What are the expectations for tool maintenance, security updates, and database refreshes beyond the initial 18-month period? A: Tool maintenance and security updates must be discussed with IT. Regarding databases refreshes, updates should be possible when the ACS GCI PMI-LCA focus team decides to update data but there is no need for automated yearly updates since the emissions factors data  are older free/legacy ecoinvent datasets (supplemented with internally made available data by ACS GCI PR members) for the sake of being license-free. Vendor is welcome to propose a maintenance contract.
6. Q: What is the duration and scope of post-deployment support included in the initial contract? A: We are open to vendor proposals on this topic. 
7. Q: What happens to tool functionality if third-party dependencies become unavailable or change licensing terms? A: Tool maintenance and security updates should align with IT governance, with collaboration between the vendor and IT. Database refreshes will occur as requested by the ACS GCI PMI-LCA focus team; automated annual updates are not required due to the use of license-free ecoinvent datasets and ACS GCI PR member data. Vendors are encouraged to propose a maintenance and support plan, including options for periodic updates and enhancements.
8. Q: Who should be responsible for managing licenses and compliance for any third-party components? A: The vendor should manage licenses for any third-party components that they integrate into the tool. ACS should have access to any components needed for the site to run.
9. Q: Are there specific data-validation or quality-assurance requirements for the integrated LCI data? A: No specific checks envisioned. Mass balance checks could be an option (such as to check if amount of all mass inputs in kg must be equal to all outputs = product and wastes in kg). Quality assurance for emissions factor data: See 8.5 and 8.9, focus team must be able to change emissions factor data but no need for specific quality assurance.
10. Q: Which specific “recent LCI databases” should be integrated, and in what priority order (e.g., ecoinvent, SimaPro, GaBi)? A: See 8.5, no specific database is targeted. It is not the scope to provide latest LCIA datasets but rather use an older free/legacy dataset (supplemented with data made available from ACSGCIPR members) to offer a license-free tool.
11. Q: Relating to User Requirement 26.1
    Please specify if an update should include latest LCA database values or if additional data sources are expected for enzyme and plant extracts. Do you have any license agreement with the respective DB provider in place?
    A: See 5 and 9.3. Based on recent discussions, User Requirement 26.1 will be relaxed so that it is sufficient for it to be possible for us to split the Enzymes and Plant Extracts category and/or provide updated indicator values at a later date. It is not the responsibility of the tool vendor to acquire this data. It should be mentioned that it is not the scope to provide latest LCIA datasets but rather use an older free/legacy dataset (supplemented with data made available from ACSGCIPR members) to offer a license-free tool, see 8.5. and 8.10.

1. Do any historical scenarios need to be migrated into the new version?
   A: No migration needed.
2. Are integrations with other systems anticipated or expected?
   A: Yes; electronic lab notebook integration is a potential nice-to-have for private company deployment – to be discussed with each interested member company.
3. Q: Can you provide a list of all the external sources referenced for data retrieval, interactions etc. (e.g., EcoInvent, Reaxys, EPA, ACS etc) with links to relevant web sites, which provide information on the API documentation, licensing information etc. A: For emissions factors, see 3.7 as well as 8.5 and 8.10. Additional API integrations may be proposed by the vendor.
4. Q: Requirement 57.1 calls for a Get/Put API to integrate with systems such as Electronic Lab Notebooks (ELNs). Please clarify the expected scope and complexity—for example, is a fully documented RESTful API expected, and are there specific data schemas or ELNs to prioritize for initial compatibility? A: If individual companies choose to pursue private deployments of the tool, they may wish for direct data import from their preferred ELN. As each member company likely has a different ELN or different implementations of their ELN, this is to be worked out privately between each interested member company and the tool vendor.
5. Q: Should the tool support integration with common process-modeling software or ERP systems used in pharmaceutical manufacturing? A: If this is feasible, any connection to potential data input sources is desired. But it must be considered that data from other software or ERP systems often does not match e.g. due to other chemical names, company internal material numbers being used instead of chemical names, etc. which might make this task complicated.
6. Q: Are there specific data export/import formats required for compatibility with existing pharmaceutical company systems? A: See 9.5.

1. Q: What is the scope and timeline for user acceptance testing with Roundtable scientists and member companies? A: 4 weeks, but open to vendor recommendations.
2. Q: What are the success criteria and acceptance requirements for project completion? A: Success looks like a webapp that meets specifications of the final approved proposal and is successfully deployed to the public on the ACS website. Roundtable members will verify functionality by using the new tool to reproduce calculated results from the old tool and confirm that new functions behave as expected.

1. Is experience with pharmaceutical industry tools or sustainability metrics (PMI, LCA) a requirement or a preference?
   A: Strong preference for familiarity with sustainability metrics; vendor expected to develop familiarity with the existing tool.
2. Are there specific standards (e.g., EU PEF, ISO 14067) the tool should remain consistent with?
   A: This tool is intended to take a streamlined approach to lifecycle assessment modeling. The data generated in this tool is for awareness and development only, and does not need to meet established standards. (User Requirement 19.1 is being relaxed from ‘must have’ to ‘nice to have’). However, vendor awareness of standards is appreciated. Explanations or tooltips of where the tool is not in compliant would be a ‘nice-to-have’ feature. Data security standards apply.
3. Are there industry compliance needs we should consider?
   A: Data security standards apply (ISO 27001:2022); sustainability calculation standards do not. See also 2.
4. Q: Are there any provisions to handling multifunctional processes (i.e. one process with multiple outputs) for PMI similar to allocation in LCA? A: Maybe this must be discussed using an example because allocation in LCA often requires allocation rules that require information which is not available in early R&D. From a technical perspective, this may be closely related to enabling the calculation of side-streams (for side-stream recycling, see answer to 3.9 and User Requirement 22.1).
5. Q: Relating to User Requirement 21.1
   Could you explain what exactly is required to determine if raw materials meet the iGAL standard (less than $100/mol) and what types of information the user needs to input in order to calculate the price per mol?
   A: To check if raw materials meet the iGAL standard (<$100/mol), the tool should calculate cost per mol using user inputs for price per unit (e.g., $/kg) and molecular weight (g/mol). The formula is: $/mol = $/kg​ × 1000 × Molecular weight (g/mol). Density (g/mL) is required for many liquids to convert $/L to $/kg.
6. Q: Relating to User Requirement 21.2
   Could you specify sources for definitions or calculation methods required for convergence and linearity in the iGAL scorecard? A: It is from the scientific paper: Improved iGAL 2.0 Metric Empowers Pharmaceutical Scientists to Make Meaningful Contributions to United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 12 | ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering
7. Q: Could you explain what is required to determine if raw materials meet the iGAL standard (less than $100/mol)? A: Cost (raw material) on lab scale ≤ $100/mol.
8. Q: Should all existing calculation standards be supported, and can they be implemented via third-party tools?
   A: No, see 2
9. Q: What are the evaluation criteria for vendor selection?  A: Vendor proposals will be evaluated on their ability to meet technical and functional requirements, demonstrate relevant experience, and provide a reliable, high-quality solution. Cost-effectiveness and the strength of proposed support and maintenance plans will also be considerations.

1. Q: How will success be measured post-deployment? A: Ability to reproduce prior calculations, number of company deployments, user activity metrics (if this can be done without tracking other identifiable user data on the public version – otherwise a ‘hit counter’ from the hosting service may be adequate), and survey feedback from Roundtable members.
2. Q: What documentation and reporting should be required for milestones and budget tracking?
   A: To be proposed by vendor.

1. Q: What is expected in the ‘response’ section of the User Reqs table?
   A: Proposals are welcome (but not required) to use this format to demonstrate how well the proposal aligns with the user requirements.
2. Q: How should future enhancements and feature requests be prioritized and funded?
   A: Will be discussed with selected vendor after successful deployment. Funding for the public tool would come from ACS GCIPR.