a triage approach to strategic sustainable purchasing · some lessons learned 14 pros: • a...

A triage approach to strategic sustainable purchasing: applying spend analysis & SPLC Guidance v1.0

Brennan Conaway, U.S. GSA Stephan D. Sylvan, U.S. EPA

Our challenge: translating spend analysis & prioritization

to specific action on contract vehicles

2

•  $450B in annual spending on products & services •  25+ large Federal agencies •  Thousands of contract vehicles •  Probably thousands of contract vehicle in just priority spend categories •  Limited time, resources & funding •  Want to maximize positive federal sustainable purchasing impact using

new Executive Order, SPLC, etc. •  Where to focus?

all federal contracts

How to translate spend analysis & prioritization to specific action on contract vehicles

specific contract vehicles & procurement activities to

focus on

all federal contracts

STEP #1. found lists of largest contract vehicles

STEP #2. mapped to priority hotspot spend categories

STEP #3. reviewed RFPs/SOWs vs SPLC Guidance v1.0 actions

STEP #4. investigating opportunities for influence

electric construct chem wood food/ag transp prof serv IT

electric construct chem wood food/ag transp prof serv IT

Disclaimers, assumptions, etc.

5

•  A very preliminary review o  Used only publically available information found on the Internet o  No extensive QA/QC o  Some key data for major contracts could not be found o  Some key sustainability data may be in task/deliver orders, not in public

RFPs, SOWs, PWSs, etc. •  Assumptions

o  Had to make judgment calls as to what action text in SPLC Guidance constitutes a distinct action

o  Had to make judgment calls as to what text in RFPs, SOW, PWSs qualifies as including SPLC actions

o  Assumed that all SPLC “actions are created equal” (no weighting that will come with SPLC rating system)

o  So if a contract vehicle’s SOW referenced 2 out of 6 actions in SPLC Guidance v1.0 for that spend category, we say 33% of SPLC actions were found in the SOW for that contract vehicle (a fairly crude analysis)

STEP #1 and #2: some of the largest contract Vehicles mapped to priority spend categories

6

Rank Name Agency $B Priority category RFP/SOW/PWS found?

1 Alliant II Unrestricted GSA 50 IT Yes

2 Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services (RS3) Army 30 IT

transport Yes

3 Defense Health IT Services Generation I IDIQ (DHITS GEN I) DoD 20 IT

4 IT Enterprise Solutions 3 Services (ITES-3S CHESS) Army 20 IT

5 ENCORE III DoD 12.2 IT

6 Contract Field Team Maintenance (CFT) Air Force 11.4 transport Yes

7 Worldwide Personal Protection Services 2 (WPS2) State 10 transport Yes

8 Transformation Twenty One Total Tech Prog Next Gen (T4NG) VA 9 IT Yes

9 Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) DoE 5.5 electricity construction/ren Yes

10 Human Capital & Training Solutions (HCaTS) GSA 5 professional services Yes

STEP #1 and #2: some of the largest contract vehicles mapped to priority spend categories (continued)

7

Rank Name Agency $B Priority category

RFP/SOW/PWS

found?

11 KC10A Contractor Logistics Support Engine Support Air Force 4.4 transport Yes

12 Global Network Services (GNS) DoD 4 IT

13 Northeast Infrastructure Solutions (NIS) GSA 4 IT Yes

14 Enterprise System Development Umbrella (ESD-II) HHS 4 IT Yes

15 Common Hardware Systems 5 (CHS-5) Army 3.7 IT

16 Management and Operation of the Kansas City Plant DoE 3.1 electricity IT Yes

17 Professional and Tech Support Services (PRO-TECH) Commerce 3 prof services Yes

18 Integrated Research Development for Enterprise Solutions (IRES) DoD 2.8 IT Yes

19 KC10A Contractor Logistics Support Depot Maintenance Airframe Air Force 2.3 electricity Yes

20 AEC Idaho Clean Contract Core Project (ICP Core) DoE 2 waste mgmt electricity Yes

Total funding: $200B+

STEP #1 and #2: some of the largest contract vehicles mapped to priority spend categories (continued)

8

# Name Agency $B Priority category

RFP/SOW/PWS

found?

21 Domestic delivery services III (DDS3) GSA transport Yes

22 Print management services GSA IT wood/agrifiber Yes

23 Janitorial and Sanitation Supplies (JANSAN) GSA chem intensive Yes

24 Telecommunications-Wireless Services & Devices GSA IT Yes

25 Office supplies III (OS3) GSA wood/agrifiber Yes

26 Furniture GSA construction/ren

27 Maintenance, repair & operations (MRO) GSA construction/ren Yes

28 SmartBuy for commercial of-the-shelf software & services GSA IT

29 Human resources services & training (HRST) GSA prof services Yes

30 Information services LOC wood/agrifiber

31 Building maintenance and operations (BMO) GSA construction/ren chem intensive Yes

32 NASA SEWP V NASA 10 IT Yes

33 NIH CIO-CS NIH IT Yes

34 GSA National Information Technology Commodity Program (NITP) 2GIT BPA GSA IT

For STEP 3: Translating SPLC Guidance v1.0 into lists of actions

by priority spend category

9

# Chemically intensive Construction/Ren Electricity Food/Ag

1

products: with no GHS corrosive warnings, GHS acute toxicity or

PPE (personal protective equipment)

demand: optimize current space use

benchmark: whole building & sub-meters, ASHRAE level I or II audit, ENERGY STAR portfolio manager, Labs21

understand food needs of population served (portion size, nutritional value, cultural, vegetarian

diets).

2 products: Green Seal, UL-E, EcoLogo, GreenGuard, Safer

Choice

demand: invest in operational performance

demand: ENERGY STAR for lighting, HVAC, appliances, electronics, refrigeration, etc

data: measure/baseline spend specific to food categories (whole/manufactured, geographic

origin, certifications, price, vendor).

3 products: purchase products with reduced solid waste

demand: structured/high quality telecommuting options

generation: Green-e or equivalent; onsite green power, offsite w/RECs

obtained separately, offsite w/RECs, offsite via direct

contract

identify primary impact areas of food purchasing based on categories with highest spend

4 products: concentrated liquid or solid products dispensed thru

closed loop dispensing systems

whole building level upgrades: LEED for EBOM, LEED for major Renovations/ID+C,

ENERGY STAR certif

align primary impact areas with institutional goals thru a Food Purchasing Policy

5 cleaning service: Green Seal or CIMS/GB

if new construction: LEED ID+C, IgCC, ASHRAE 189.1,

ENERGY STAR certification

demand: explore opportunities to reduce demand & associated waste generation with existing food

spend.

6 training: user training in safe/proper product use

products: ENERGY STAR, WaterSense

explore shifting to less impactful food choices (meat/veg mix)

7 products: benchmarked vs industry leadership LCA data

products: USDA Organic, Food Alliance Certified, Certified Humane Raised and Handled, Animal

Welfare Approved, Salmon Safe, MSC, Aquaculture Stewardship Council, Rainforest

Alliance, Fair Food Program, Protected Harvest, Bird Friendly Coffee, Fair Trade

8

Note: The data above should be considered draft. It is based on a preliminary review of contract vehicles.

For STEP 3: Translating SPLC Guidance v1.0 into lists of actions by

priority spend category (continued)

10

# IT professional services transport wood/agrifiber

1 products: use smaller computers

where appropriate; right-size computer needs

demand: invest in mobile workforce fuels: reduce need for fuels thru fuel optimization

demand: duplexing, print mgmt software, etc.

2 products: EPEAT, ENERGY STAR travel policy to reduce env impact fuels: use low carbon fuels &

sustainable biofuels product: consider needs in terms of

weight, grain, brightness, shade

3

products: when appropriate replace older inefficient

computers w/env superior computers

minimize impact on service providers fleet: reduce need for new

vehicles thru cross-enterprise collab, car sharing, right-sizing

product: purchase paper w/verified reduction in impacts over life cycle

4 demand: power management software

service: define/diffuse screening criteria for service providers

fleet: shift SUV to cars, higher efficiency, greener vehicles including hybrids, AFVs &

invest in infrastructure

product: virgin fiber should be certified from responsibly managed forests.

5 demand: explore thin client program service: encourage greener lodging fleet data: track/report fuel

efficiency/fuel types product: if 100% virgin, seek Total

Chlorine Free (TCF).

6 data: increase visibility into supply chain

fleet: demonstrate improvement over contract life

product: otherwise seek Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF)

7 data: use tools such as Windows Energy Calculator

delivery: optimize utilization & logistics; procure ZEVs, LEVs,

AFVs

product: remaining non-virgin paper should be post-consumer recycled

8 delivery: participate in SmartWay Transport provide recycling infrastructure

Note: The data above should be considered draft. It is based on a preliminary review of contract vehicles.

STEP #3: reviewed against SPLC Guidance v1.0

11


SPLC Guidance v1.0 actions in RFP/SOW/PWS

1 Alliant II Unrestricted GSA 50 IT 14%

2 Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services (RS3) Army 30 IT

transport 0%

3 Defense Health IT Services Generation I IDIQ (DHITS GEN I) DoD 20 IT TBD

4 IT Enterprise Solutions 3 Services (ITES-3S CHESS) Army 20 IT TBD

5 ENCORE III DoD 12.2 IT TBD

6 Contract Field Team Maintenance (CFT) Air Force 11.4 transport 0%

7 Worldwide Personal Protection Services 2 (WPS2) State 10 transport 0%

8 Transformation Twenty One Total Tech Prog Next Gen (T4NG) VA 9 IT 0%

9 Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) DoE 5.5 electricity

construction/ren 50%

10 Human Capital & Training Solutions (HCaTS) GSA 5 professional

services 0%

Note: The data above should be considered draft, based on a preliminary review of contract vehicle documentation.

STEP #3: reviewed against SPLC Guidance v1.0 (continued)

12



11 KC10A Contractor Logistics Support Engine Support Air Force 4.4 transport 0%

12 Global Network Services (GNS) DoD 4 IT TBD

13 Northeast Infrastructure Solutions (NIS) GSA 4 IT 0%

14 Enterprise System Development Umbrella (ESD-II) HHS 4 IT 0%

15 Common Hardware Systems 5 (CHS-5) Army 3.7 IT TBD

16 Management and Operation of the Kansas City Plant DoE 3.1 electricity

IT 0%

17 Professional and Tech Support Services (PRO-TECH) Commerce 3 prof services 0%

18 Integrated Research Development for Enterprise Solutions (IRES) DoD 2.8 IT 0%

19 KC10A Contractor Logistics Support Depot Maintenance Airframe Air Force 2.3 electricity 0%

20 AEC Idaho Clean Contract Core Project (ICP Core) DoE 2 waste mgmt

electricity 25%


STEP #3: reviewed against SPLC Guidance v1.0 (continued)

13

# Name Agency $B Priority category


21 Domestic delivery services III (DDS3) GSA transport 50%

22 Print management services GSA IT wood/agrifiber 13%

23 Janitorial and Sanitation Supplies (JANSAN) GSA chem intensive 50%

24 Telecommunications-Wireless Services & Devices GSA IT 0%

25 Office supplies III (OS3) GSA wood/agrifiber 0%

26 Furniture GSA construction/ren TBD

27 Maintenance, repair & operations (MRO) GSA construction/ren 0%

28 SmartBuy for commercial of-the-shelf software & services GSA IT TBD

29 Human resources services & training (HRST) GSA prof services 0%

30 Information services LOC wood/agrifiber TBD

31 Building maintenance and operations (BMO) GSA construction/ren chem intensive 67%

32 NASA SEWP V NASA 10 IT 14%

33 NIH CIO-CS NIH IT 29%

34 GSA National Information Technology Commodity Program (NITP) 2GIT BPA GSA IT TBD


Some lessons learned

14

PROS: •  A practical way to turn spend analysis into some concrete next step •  Ensures initial steps are material in terms of sustainability •  Doesn’t require a lot of time, resources or expertise •  Forward orientation focuses on future opportunities vs. past activities •  Relatively easy to explain to senior management CONS / CHALLENGES •  There are limitations with assessing master contracts in this way (RFPs, SOWs,

PWSs don’t fully indicate or guarantee sustainability performance) •  Potential to miss some major environmental hotspots (e.g., large # of medium/

small contracts with major hotspots) •  Focuses on contract vehicle documentation vs. actual products & services

delivered

BACK POCKET SLIDES

15

A federal government sustainability spend analysis

Sources: TruthStudio, Carnegie Mellon EIO-LCA 16

a triage approach to strategic sustainable purchasing · some lessons learned 14 pros: • a...

Documents