2023 Informational Webinar GSA DOE RFI for Technologies that Support Net Zero Carbon Buildings
>> Well, welcome everyone. And I'm Andrea Silvestri from GSA's Center for Emerging Building Technologies, and welcome to our webinar on this year's joint GSA [inaudible] request for information for technologies for net zero carbon buildings. And we're going to get started momentarily, but before doing so, I want to review a few logistics. So, today's webinar is being recorded and will be shared with our mailing list as well as posted to the GSA website and our YouTube channel. You're all in listen mode, and you can use the Q and A button at the bottom of this window. The Q and A will happen after our presentations, but you don't need to wait to ask questions.
In fact, we encourage you to ask them well in advance. And we do have a list of frequently asked questions available on gsa.gov on the Green Proving Ground website. And so, you may find answers to some of your questions in that PDF. Today's webinar is being recorded as we mentioned and will be shared with our mailing list as well as posted to the GSA website and our YouTube channel.
Over the next hour we'll give you a brief overview of the TOE and GSA test bed programs you'll be submitting your information to. The types of technologies we're looking for and the mechanics of submitting information to and participating in our program. We will leave plenty of time for Q and A, and if we haven't gone through all of your questions I'll be following up by email. And I want to introduce -- give a quick introduction to our panelists today. Kevin Powell from the General Services Administration will walk us through GSA's green proving ground program. Jim Cycyota, from the Department of Energy will walk us through the three daily programs that are supporting this request for information.
Rois Langner from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory will highlight what we're looking for in this year's [inaudible]. And Donna Creason from GSA will review our [inaudible]. And now I'd like to turn it over to Kevin, the director of GSA Center for Emerging Building Technologies.
>> Well, thank you, Andrea. So, thank you, and thank you everybody for having joined us here. This is going to be our 13th program here. Ninth as a joint daily GSA program. Super excited about where we are as basically as a program and as an agency in terms of what we're looking to accomplish over the next 20 years, and that's really what this RFI is about.
What our administrator likes to say is that this is a once in a generation money meets the moment, moment. As many of you know, the current administration has set old goals for us to really tackle the climate crisis to achieve net zero emissions economy wide by 2050, and for GSA specifically portfolio wide by 2045. We're going to have a fully net zero emissions vehicle fleet by 2035.
So, when you put all of this together, what that means is that we are going to completely transform our facilities with the sorts of technologies that all of you are going to be bringing to essentially the table and to the building of the future. What we have up on the screen are the five topic areas that we see as essential to delivering that transformed portfolio. The facility of the future is going to be healthier.
It's going to be smarter. It's going to be net zero and resilient and how are we going to get there? We're going to get there by stacking technologies together and that is what we mean by deep energy retrofits. We're going to be hosting this all zero-emission vehicle fleet, and we're going to be hosting it at buildings that aren't burning any fossil fuels. They're going to be all electric. So, again we need technologies to support and deliver that. Overall, we need to be delivering in real time 24/7 net zero operations.
We need to track that. We need to be able to deliver that. And we need to do this in a manner that allows our workforce to be effective and productive. And that means that the buildings need to be healthy and they need to be resilient. And in many ways thinking about the pandemic those two things go together.
Lastly, we need to be operating this portfolio in a manner that consistently delivers the performance that it's designed to deliver. And as many of you know that is an art form unto itself. So, what we're talking about there is ways to continuously essentially deliver that optimum performance that is needed to deliver a consistent net zero operation. Next slide.
So, a few words about GSA. As Andrea said, this is a joint program with Department of Energy, and we'll hear more about what the commercial building side of this looks like. But to understand the federal side, what we're talking about and through the green proving ground program is test beds in this portfolio of buildings and technologies that address the needs of that portfolio of buildings. So, what we're talking about through GSA is the single largest portfolio of commercial real estate in the United States. It's almost all office space. Some specialized space as in essentially assembly space which is court rooms.
There is some other specialty spaces where like land ports of entry that we obviously do care about, but generally speaking, what we're talking about is commercial office space. Our buildings are, generally speaking, large, and they're located in, generally speaking, urban areas. They have central plants. So, this is not [inaudible] suburban type of locations.
This is big buildings. We're looking for technologies that address that type of building. And most of our buildings are located in essentially those three climates that you see on the screen. Mild climates. The other thing to know about federal facilities is that they are above average. We've been working to make them energy efficient and essentially the best facility that they can be leading by example for a long time.
So, our facilities are energy stars for 80 or better for the most part. Next slide. So, a word about that money meets the moment, moment. As you may know, GSA received almost -- actually more than three billion dollars to help implement this, sort of, first steps forward towards this all net zero portfolio by 2045, and that's the investments you see on the screen. There's a couple of those that I really wanted to direct you to, and the first and foremost is the 975 million dollars for emerging tech.
That is essentially the technologies that are coming out of this program. So, we have this program year I would say is the last possible program year that can influence this particular pot of money. We're hopeful another pot of money similar to this coming in the near term. But generally speaking, this is how the money is meeting, I should say, the implementation of the outcomes of participating in this program is that kind of deployment. Should also note that some of those funds are actually why we're able to scale up our green proving ground and applied innovation learning labs this year.
So, we'll able to take in more technologies and validate them in more locations. The other area that I just want to direct you towards is these low carbon materials. Again, most of this has been shaped at this point, but there is still the potential to impact some of how that gets spent, and certainly again, we're hoping that this is just the first time we'll see this sort of funding in the overarching past to 2045 we'll be fully funded. Next slide.
Another piece of funding that I just want to make sure everybody is aware of is that there was another substantial chunk of change that was included as part of the bipartisan infrastructure law, and that really is funding modernization of all of our land ports of entry. And again, we're looking to make sure that those land ports of entry are delivering on these other sorts of outcomes that we're talking about through the Inflation Reduction Act investments. That is to say that they are transitioning to be a net zero operation facility. Again, great opportunity for deploying these emerging and sustainable technologies that we're asking you to submit to this year's RFI. Next slide. Just a couple of notes about how the program works, why we have this program, why we've had it for 13 years.
What we know, what we've known in the past and what we really know in the present is that to get to this future that we are determined and will achieve, that is to say, this fleet of fully zero emission vehicles by 2035 and this fleet of portfolio of all zero emission buildings by 2045, we need innovative technologies, and we really recognize that there's a big pipeline of those technologies out there. The challenge is, and this is the challenge that we're all here hopefully to work on together is that you have an early commercial technology that needs to have -- it essentially needs to go to finishing school and that finishing school is that first user risk that tries this technology out in the real world of operating buildings installed by people who install the technologies that we have our buildings in and operated by the people who operate the technologies that we have in our building. And that is what the green proving ground program does. When things deliver in the real world and in past program history, it's that all technologies can operate in the real world successfully delivering on claims when installed by their inventor and operator. By their inventor.
But when we get to that real productized product, there's some shading out that does indeed happen. That's what this program is about, and at the end of it what happens is that the market itself, that is to say, owners such as GSA and private sector owners, and then invest the third-party financers, the SO community that we rely on for a lot of projects have the confidence that this technology is going to deliver in the real world over time. That's what this program does. Next slide.
Just sort of a top-level view of where have we been over the past 13 years. Well, there's been 1000 submissions to the program. We have selected a little more than 10% of them, and 53 of those technologies have reached a conclusion that is to say they were done with the validation and they have a conclusive result. On those behalf have proven out to be so effective that we have continued to deploy them where we are deploying them in locations other than where they were tested. So, that means 700 facilities.
That means 30 million dollars of annual savings, and it goes 117 tons of GHG reduction. Just from those technologies. Those 23 technologies that we have validated previously, and that, of course, is not including the huge impact we expect to see from that IRA funding. Next slide. So, just to wrap up here, what's in it for you? We think that there's incredible value, and hopefully you do too, in seeing your technology validated by a trusted third party in a real-world setting. We feel like that is what we need to have to make investment decisions.
I know that many of our peers in the corporate real estate industry feel similarly, that these kinds of field validations make the difference. We know that our ESCO partners feel that this is what they need to make investment decisions in emerging technologies. We have heard from quite a number of graduates of the GBG program that these studies do increase market acceptance.
Not just by the federal side. In fact, I think most would say that the biggest benefits they've seen are probably in broader market acceptance that comes with one of these validations. And then, of course, the bottom line on this is that in our -- as our previous commissioner said, our enlightened, selfish interest we're looking to achieve our goals delivering that, our zero portfolio by 2045.
We need to be smart about how we -- what we invest in to get there because obviously funds are scarce. And then, of course, we do hope that we're engaging in some broader market transformation. So, with that, I'm going to turn this over to Tim. >> Thanks, Kevin. I'm Tim Cycyota, and I'm a contractor technical advisor for the Department of Energy, Solar Energy Technologies Office.
Through DOE, our offices are partnering with GSA on this RFI, and I'm here to give a brief introduction to those offices and an overview of their areas of interest. First, the building technologies office, or BTO, develops, demonstrates, and accelerates the adoption of cost-effective technologies that enable high performing and energy efficient buildings. BTO's commercial buildings integration program focuses on validating technologies in the field through partnerships with commercial buildings. They work closely with the Better Buildings Partners. Companies representing 13% of all commercial building space in the United States to connect the national labs and technology partners such as yourselves with recruited host sites to provide technical assistance and third-party measurement and verification. Next, the Federal Energy Management Program, or FEMP, works to enable federal agencies to meet their energy related goals particularly through the facilitation of public private partnerships.
In their role as a technology validator, FEMP connects potential validation sites with solution providers. These sites extend beyond the GSA portfolio offering a wider range of potential sites for measurement and verification of technology solutions. And finally, the solar energy technologies office or SETO, accelerates the advancement and deployment of solar technology including building integrated photovoltaics. In particular, SETO supports domestic manufacturing and competitiveness research to develop pathways to commercialization for high impact innovation in the solar industry. The goal is to move technologies to market by strengthening innovative concepts and increasing their readiness for greater private sector investment and scale up to commercialization.
DOE is proud to collaborate with GSA on the advancement of innovative technologies through this RFI, and we're looking forward to seeing your submissions. Now I'll turn things over to Rois to give some background on what specifically we're looking for in this RFI. >> Great. Thanks, Tim, and hi everyone.
I'm Rois Langner. I'm a senior research engineer and architectural engineer at NREL, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. I've provided technical support to GSA and DOE throughout the development of this RFI, and today I'm going to go over what types of submissions and technologies we're looking for this year. Next slide. To start, Kevin mentioned this. I'll reiterate it here, but we're looking for early or underutilized commercial building technologies.
These are technologies that are ready for evaluation in occupied and operational buildings. They go beyond the prototype days, but not yet broadly used or readily available. So, once again, it's really this early commercial or underutilized technology phase that we're looking for. Next slide.
We also require that technologies have all health and safety certifications that are applicable to that particular technology. A list of some of the more critical certifications are listed on this slide, but please note that this may not be a comprehensive list. And for PD technologies, photovoltaics in particular, PV modules and or inverters, technologies should be registered on EP, the electronic product environmental assessment tool or provide an exemption. EP is an eco-label. It's a consumer information registry developed by the Global Electronics Council that provides assurance of lower environmental impact products.
This is relevant to the RFI as EP has provisions for solar panel modules and inverters, and the federal government uses EP when making purchasing decisions. Next slide. So, now I'm going to dive into the types of technologies that we're looking for this year.
The first group of technologies are those that support deep energy retrofits, improve energy efficiency, and reduce the carbon footprint of existing buildings. I'll go through a few examples of these technologies, and this is not comprehensive, so if you feel like your technology falls under these categories definitely feel encouraged to apply. But some examples are technologies that capture or manage waste heat, and examples of those types of technologies could be those that recover heat from certain mechanical systems to preheat other air, water, or heat pump systems. Another example are technologies that prevent refrigerant leaks or utilize no or low global warming potential refrigerants. Technologies to improve existing building envelope conditions. In particular, envelope retrofits solutions to manage solar heat gain, minimize air leakage or reduce heating and cooling loads, or any combination of these solutions.
Passive building technologies. This would include technologies such as thermal mass systems, like ice storage that can increase thermal mass and enable demand shifting. Daylight redirection devices or novel daylight shading systems or technologies to enable pre [inaudible] or pre-heating capabilities.
An example of that would be a technology like a transpired solar air collector. And the last example technology category here would be novel lighting solutions and lighting control systems. Next slide.
The second category is for electrification technologies across buildings and transportation. The technologies we're interested in include, but again, are not limited to larger scale heat pumps for commercial retrofit applications including cold climate heat pumps, packaged heat pumps with water heating or integrated with make up air systems, smart panels and circuits or technologies that minimize the need for electrical service upgrades. Electric vehicle supply equipment including novel EV charging solutions, EV to building or grade or bidirectional charging solutions. Next slide. The third category covers technologies that support net zero operations.
Technologies of interest include, but again not limited to, on site carbon-free energy generations such as building integrated PV, high efficiency PV designs to thermal designs or ground and building mounted wind turbines that would be applied to a particular building, site, or campus. On site energy storage including battery, thermal, or green hydrogen. On site carbon capture technologies for fuel and fire processes.
Technologies that integrate on site generation and storage with building management systems. Software solutions that can optimize and report greenhouse gas emissions. Next slide. The fourth category is focused on technologies to enhance occupant comfort, building health, and building resiliency. As Kevin says these often go hand in hand.
Example technologies that we would be interested in include dynamic in door environmental quality, monitoring and control technologies, novel methods to reduce the risk of disease transmission, lone body carbon materials. Technologies that could enhance resiliency and passive survivability. Microgrid technologies and water conservation and harvesting technologies that save water and support continued facility operation if water supply is disrupted. Next slide.
And our last category focuses on technologies that provide building commissioning and control. Examples of these technologies would include technologies that enable easier retro and continuous commissioning, software or hardware or both that supports demand flexible or grid interactive efficient buildings, software to identify potential savings from building operations, and the most effective combination of energy conservation measures, low-cost technologies that enable hardware synchronization with older control systems and technologies that enable automated IOT inventory collection. Next slide.
And lastly, if possible, we are interested in hearing about novel financing approaches and or business models that your company has developed to accelerate the uptake of the technology. This is really important for our team as we consider federal and non-federal application and deployment pathways for the selected technologies that we evaluate. And with that, I'm going to hand it over to Donna.
>> Thank you, Rois. Hello everyone. I'm Donna Creason representing strategic communications for GSA's Center for Emerging Building Technologies.
I'll walk through guidance for our submissions, our internal review process, participation expectations from responding technology providers, as well as timelines. Next slide. For GSA and the broader commercial building sector, it's important to quantify the applicability and effectiveness of technology through validations in this program. That criteria and expectations will be specific to the technology and will likely fit into one or more of these categories.
And validations will include measurement and verification of reduced emissions, primary energy savings or demand reductions, on site energy generation load management, improved operational performance and cost effectiveness, and demonstration of novel financing approaches could provide additional value. Next slide. To briefly describe our categorical criteria for technology reviews, we'll look at the following five factors.
Innovation. We're looking for notable differentiators from options already proven and widely available. We're also looking at performance characteristics and the benefits or improvements that technology provides. We're looking for quantifying the savings potential in terms of carbon reduction, energy savings, and return on investment. We're also looking at market and opportunity for the technology which we'll consider commercial buildings in both the public and private sectors. And we also want to know how ready the technology is for a wider market in an appropriate timeline.
I'll go into the technical readiness and the path to market on a future slide. Our internal down select process includes technical analysis by subject matter experts at the national laboratories, reviews by ranking, by DOE, GSA, and independent industry experts, and finally, determination of finalists for validation by GPG program leadership. Next slide.
For validation in GSA buildings, the core technology equipment for evaluation must be gifted to GSA. GSA covers the cost of insulation according to the technology provider's guidance. In the DOE validation, technologies are typically purchased by the validation site with those negotiations being between the vendor and the host site.
These sites will be non-GSA facilities and could be either a private or public sector partner. We are open to existing relationships if the technology provider has ideal candidates or specific sectors that are well suited to the technology. Throughout all the steps of the validation, site selection, installation, M and V and reporting, we want the technology providers to be included in the process. So, this will include things like supporting the labs lead researcher and advising on the criteria they develop, guidance on all aspects of the installation and M and V, as well as availability for onsite and audio-visual meetings to facilitate the validation. Just to note that neither GSA nor DOE will provide direct funding to participate in the evaluation. Next slide.
For technologies looking to sell to the federal market, having a target pathway for BAA and TAA compliance. So, BAA is Buy American Act and TAA is Trades Agreement Act. So, if you have a target pathway for these compliance, it's very important. Foreign companies are also able to participate in the RFI. Next slide. For both the GSA and the DOE, there will be a number of stakeholders involved throughout the project.
A federal project manager will oversee and approve milestones. Host sites are expected to provide leadership on facility background and baseline. The lab researcher or the principal investigator will serve as the project lead on developing criteria and advising from site selection through final validation reporting or case studies. And the technology provider is expected to support all matters throughout the validation.
Security clearance for federal projects is a multi-step process. All hardware and software will need to be scanned. Technologies that connect to the building will need additional scanning, and if there's a cloud-based component, it will need a temporary [inaudible] clearance, as well for broader deployment and federal buildings it will need FedRAMP approval. Next slide.
We want to briefly highlight the markets that are potential validation sites for this RFI. The DOE can reach any type of commercial building. Historically in the private sector these have frequently been Better Building participants, but we are broadening our focus to include more small commercial in underserved markets with a goal of increasing the reach of all initiatives.
GSA's portfolio buildings is distributed throughout the US with about 90% being large office buildings. That is, 100,000 square feet or greater. Eighty percent of the portfolio's energy spend with buildings greater than 200,000 square feet. The majority of those are in mild climates which is about 80% and [inaudible] climate zones three, four, and five, as well as the energy efficiency rating is majority energy star rating of 80 or better.
Next slide. So, this table provides a high level look at key dates in RFI process in the down select. As you can see, the grayed-out October 16th RFI is already opened.
The blue is where we are now. We're at that informational webinar, and you can see the remaining deadlines that will be coming up. Some of our finalists will submit responses to reviewer feedback and questions. Then a video presentation of your technology will also be requested and a live video conference will be scheduled to provide direct feedback and responses to the GSA and DOE teams. Next slide.
So, what we're showing here is a rough timeline of the assessment process. There are four phases. Site selection, installation, measurement and verification, or M and V, and reporting.
So, site selection takes approximately four months. Installation takes approximately six months. M and V usually takes from six months out to a year.
And then reporting takes approximately six months. Next slide. So, finally I would like to talk about how to apply. The RFI's submission details are currently available on the sam.gov website. We've provided the specific solicitation number.
You can search on that as well. There's also information on GSA's Center for Emerging Building Technologies website. Responses will be accepted through Friday, December 8th, until 11:59 p.m. Eastern.
So, please submit by that time to be considered. Responses received after that will not be accepted. And if you have questions, we can assist via email or phone conference if necessary. And the GPG email contact is provided at the end of this slide. And then now I'll turn it over to Andrea to facilitate Q and A. Thank you.
>> Great. Thank you, Donna. So, we do have a number of questions, and so, we'll get through as many of these as we can. And one thing, if you have a specific question about your technology that we don't ask, feel free to reach out to that GPG at gsa.gov address. And also, I saw people are raising hands. We won't be answering those.
If you have questions please go ahead and put them in the Q and A panel. So, the first question and the panelists if you all want to come back on video so that we can get through as many of these as we can. So, one question, if we intend to submit multiple technologies, should we submit separate applications for each or should we consolidate all technologies into a single application? And Rois, do you want to take that? >> Yes, sure. I think if the technologies are drastically different, absolutely separate them into different submissions.
If they are technologies that build upon each other, there might be reason to combine it into one application. But probably the first response I gave I would separate it. >> Great. And can we represent third party products in our application? In other words, if there's a technology we want to submit that is not our technology but one we're familiar with, can we submit the application on behalf of that technology? >> Kevin, do you want to take that one? >> Yes. I think you, again, we've had people submitting technologies on behalf of them. Yes, so the short answer is yes as long as you and that vendor are -- essentially the vendor is asking you to represent their technology, or you're in partnership with them. >> Great. Thank you.
Oh, there was a question. Will there be another round of this program next year? Kevin, do you want to take that? >> Yes. Absolutely, and at the same escalated level because of these inflation reduction act, the Inflation Reduction Act funding.
>> This is a question. How does GSA measure a healthy and resilient building? And I'm not sure we can answer that question, or we might want to get back. >> I think we should get back. >> Okay. Sounds good. So, is there a way -- there are a ton of questions about whether you'll accept prototypes and how do you know it's an emerging technology? Do you have any additional guidance on that? >> I'll take the first crack at this, and then Rois, I'd like you to weigh in.
We really need to have a commercial product to test in a facility. That is to say it's a prototype is not what we're looking for. We're looking for something, it could be from a pilot production line. It should need to be able to make this in sufficient quantity to evaluate and for us to have confidence that you are [inaudible] a commercial product.
Rois, do you want to chime in there? >> I'll just add that the aim of this program is really to evaluate technologies in operational and occupied buildings. So, if the technology is not quite ready to be put in the federal courthouse for example, then it's not ready for this program. >> Thank you.
If somebody has already participated in the program in the past, are they eligible to apply again? >> Yes. >> Yes. Great. Let's see.
Have you accepted software technologies into the program? >> We certainly have in the past. Some examples have been around building controls and fault detection diagnostics, energy management information systems, GEB Software solutions. Those are some examples. >> What type and level of funding is provided if the technology is gifted and only installation costs are covered? I guess the question is what does GSA cover and what does its vendor need to provide to repeat what those requirements were? >> I guess I'll take that one.
So, vendor is providing their technology where GSA is funding the installation and DOE and GSA together are funding the validation by a national lab. >> And how do you decide whether the field demonstration will be a DOE or GSA building? >> Rois, do you want to take that one? >> I was looking to you, Kevin. But that is a great question. I think it just depends on the interests coming from both GSA and DOE and also application whether it's appropriate for the federal sector. Some technologies are actually not as appropriate for the federal sector but more for the private sector.
And in those cases it's more appropriate to tap into the DOE Better Building partners, et cetera. >> And I'll just sort of chime in and say that our favorite validations are ones that have a private sector and a federal sector site. I think that gives us the greatest confidence. The pathways are kind of different than when I said there are some techs that are really just much more appropriate at GSA.
There are some that are really only for the private sector. But when there is that nice big overlap in the middle it's the best. >> Thank you. I know we talked about where the technology should fit in the commercialization but if we're talking about TRL levels, can you give guidance on what TRL levels are applicable for this? >> Usually we stick with TRL's seven through nine if that helps.
>> A question, is it okay if the certification such as you all staying a FedRAMP or EPD's are in progress, can you still apply? >> Yes. I would apply but I would clearly state where you are within that progression, and when you anticipate certification. >> Great. One question is will the gifted units donated be tax deductible? I'm not sure that we can answer that question. I think that's probably -- do any of us -- do we have an answer here? >> I think you could ask that to your accountant.
>> Yes. Let's see. You mentioned previously that there's a 10% success rate in terms of number of submissions versus number of selected technologies. Do you anticipate that success rate changing? >> Because of that's that the historic success rate and because of the additional funding we received from the Inflation Reduction Act, we may have a higher hit rate this year assuming a higher -- again, if every submission maintains the level of quality we've seen lately, then I think the hit rate is likely to be higher this year.
>> If our product is not made in the US, can they still apply to the program? >> Yes, part of that slide -- well, two things. First of all, for that DOE side, there aren't these same kinds of restrictions. So, if you're looking for the DOE side only and have no path to American manufacturer I don't think you'd be excluded. But for GSA, you could be manufactured currently overseas but need to show a path to being able to be procured by GSA which means that you have to be able to comply with the BAA, MTAA requirements. >> Thank you. What's the scale of the measurement and verification tests? Entire buildings? Rois.
>> Yes. I think that ends up depending -- they ultimately want to know the impact of the technology on an entire building. Usually the metrics are around energy savings, demand savings, carbon reduction, cost savings, et cetera. So, that's where we go with -- how does the technology impact the whole building? But the M and V and the validation for a particular technologies will be dependent on that technology and what the best approaches for the evaluation. >> Could a new low carbon building material participate in this program or is it really just focused on energy and operations? >> Absolutely. Yes.
>> Perfect. Can you evaluate a product at a site where it's already been installed, and what type of site would work? >> That's -- Rois. >> Some of these I'm pointing at you, Kevin.
Yes, that's something that we could consider for sure. I think we've done that in the past with other technologies. >> Who owns the intellectual property. Kevin, do you want to take that? >> I will take that.
Yes, we have the intellectual property is a big deal and needs to be 100% clear with everybody on this webinar. That the intellectual property and the incremental intellectual property that [inaudible] created as part of this project is the vendor's intellectual property. So, our construct is that there's no -- it's not a public private partnership in that way. So, we have rather rigorous guardrails in place to make sure that anything that you would learn that would help improve your product is something that remains with you, the vendor. >> Can you talk a little bit more about the GSA has different cybersecurity requirements and can we share those? And I can say we do.
That's linked in that frequently asked questions, and we can provide and follow up with more specific direction on what type of requirement you'll need to pass cybersecurity. Would a new submit concrete products with low and [inaudible] carbon qualify for this program? >> We selected such a product last year and we could again. >> Does the vendor have to identify the test site? >> No, but if you do have a test site you should identify it. >> There's a number of questions about what to do when a technology might cover more than one of the RFI categories. Do you have any guidance on how to select which of the categories to apply to? >> I don't have any specific guidance.
If it's really close to multiple categories, I would just chose one, and it'll go through the evaluation process like all the other submissions. >> Is there a particular return on investment you need for a project or is it based more on energy savings and carbon reduction? >> I'll take that and say that it's based -- I think that's a complicated question, but I wouldn't say that -- so especially right now when we're talking about how to get to net zero by 2045. Some technologies may really be required to go down that path effectively that don't necessarily have traditional payback. So, I wouldn't want technologies like that to not apply because they think, well there is no path to catching payback.
For technologies that are looking to have some sort of energy play, again you want to be -- the official answer is you want to be life cycle cost effective. >> I'll also add that our metrics, we have many quantitative methods, but we also have a number of qualitative metrics that we assess as well. So, how does the technology impact facility managers, occupants, the health, the resiliency of the building? So, we do greatly consider those metrics and no-energy benefits as well. >> Thank you. Can you enter a submission for the same product more than once? And I guess it might be interpreted two ways.
I'm not sure what more than once if it's been submitted in previous years or more than once this year. And I guess we can say you can submit an application even if you've submitted in past years but don't submit your application this year more than once. >> And if you have submitted in a previous year you should note what is different that is leading you to reapply, because we do have seen, we've asked folks to reapply. So, again, [inaudible] being further along typically in your developing cycle. And then there's a number of folks who have come back, reapplied with a modification to their submission that essentially fixed what we were concerned about, and they've been selected for the program on the second go around. So, yes, absolutely apply a second time if you think there is some reason to apply a second time.
>> So, GSA has primarily commercial office space. If someone has a technology that targets multi dwelling buildings such as hotels, dorms, and multi family housing, is there an opportunity in this RFI? >> Yes. Through the DOE side of this program. Absolutely.
>> Great. Are you looking for any design consulting or implementation services under this RFI? >> No. I would say no to that. I guess it would maybe be dependent on if the design consultation is through a technology that would help with better space utilization or management of certain health aspects, but not in the sense of designing a retrofit or newly constructed building.
>> Great. Thank you. And I just want to say for everyone, I see Joshua Banis is here also. The director of the Green Proving Ground. So, Joshua, feel free on any of these to jump in.
So, if M and V is done on a whole building does that mean the technology needs to be gifted for the whole building? >> I'm going to try to take this because I'm going to sort of build on what Rois said previously. So, what we say for any M and V is that we're looking to test the minimum amount of product that can deliver a generalizable result. Now the minimum amount of product needs to be donated. That's just the mechanics of this program.
On the other hand, in many cases we're not actually going to retrofit an entire building because we recognize, again, that's beyond what can be donated. It's probably beyond what we can afford to validate. So, on our end also we're trying to contain the validation to the minimum amount of space needed to come up with that generalizable result. That said, we got to test sufficient quantity to have a generalizable result and that may mean more than one location as well. >> And I'll just add that's true for the federal side of this program.
So, for the DOE side of this, the technology can be -- the cost of the technology can be negotiated with the site partner that's chosen. The non-federal site partner. So, there is another pathway there. >> Thank you.
For the certifications are on page five of the application, are all necessary except for UL and ETL? >> The certification should be appropriate to the specific types of technology that is applying. That's just a list of certifications that we do see but it has application to specific technology types. >> If you're looking at a technology that's already installed, do you still require it to be gifted? >> That one I'm going to start taking that, but Rois and Joshua, you should chime in.
If it's already installed and we do have, as Rois said, a couple of things that are like this, then obviously there's no gift that is required. On the other hand, we've typically taken the installed location as essentially a second site that is validated and sort of improving the confidence, as I said the generalizableness [assumed spelling] of the results. So, there's usually a second site that does require some gifted product. >> On the M and V side of things, if we really want to conduct robust M and V, we need a solid baseline that we're comparing the technology to. So, we can't just use one site where the technology is installed if we don't have a baseline to compare the operation of that technology to the baseline.
>> Can we request a debrief if not selected? >> Yes. >> Great. And if reapplying can the reasoning behind the prior decline be obtained? >> Well, hopefully they have done a debrief on -- yes. >> If we want a list of potential sites with the better building's partner selected, can GSA help make this connection to those partners? >> Through the DOE partners within this RFI group.
Great. There's a question about what to do in December whether it's just the online webform and that is the application that's due on the 8th. From the application the number of commercial customers, the question is does it include other products the company may sell or just the product that's being entered into this submission? >> Just the product that's entered into the submission. >> If the technology is installed already in multiple sites, does that provide sufficient baseline? >> Baseline would be not having the technology installed. Using an incumbent technology that is typically used.
So, that would be the baseline. Having the technology that's applying would be what we would be measuring against the baseline. >> Great.
>> And for GSA's site too it would depend on the site that we chose and if data prior to installation was available. >> Great. There's a question about effort. Does it include alternatives to EB's? So, actual different modes of transportation. Not just the EB charging infrastructure but also EB's. >> I would say yes to that.
>> Great. I think we've got five minutes. We've answered most of the questions. We'll just hold it open for another minute to see if there are any other questions that we should go through.
And you may be able to answer this question. What EPD's do you recommend and what HPD do you recommend? Rois. >> I'm sorry.
What is it? EPD. >> EPD. Environmental product declarations, and we may be able to follow up with that. >> That one should be on follow up because there's a lot of information around that that our essentially our PMO that's delivering IRA and [inaudible] Infrastructure law projects have developed.
So, let's put that out as an FAQ and there'll be a link and robust information on that. >> Great. Perfect. Would a technology to make an HVAC system more energy efficient fit into the deep energy retrofit category? >> Absolutely. >> Are technologies that help our outdoor power within the scope, these would be for exterior spaces owned and managed by GSA such as adjacent landscapes, parking paths in streets.
>> I'm assuming this is for on site renewables. So, yes, I think if it's feeding into the building or the campus building or the portfolio buildings, I think that does apply. >> Would you accept technologies that have never been installed? I'm assuming it's never been installed in a building? >> I'm going to say that we have a Better Buildings alliance partner who says one of his rules is don't install anything with a serial number one. >> Have there been any modifications to the submissions deadline? >> I can say no. The deadline is still the 8th. >> If we have further questions who can we contact? That's that gpg@gsa.gov email address.
>> What do we do if we don't have a final EPD? >> We'll follow up on that. >> Yes. We're not going to require that for this. >> Is the RFI open [inaudible] being delivered with the technology integrated already? I think we've already spoken about that.
So, there are a number of questions that I know someone's asked again. If they had a technology that's being installed now in a building, and I think we've answered that question is that is possible. Okay. I think that's it. So, we will be -- thank you all for joining us.
Thank you for the panelists. We'll be following up. We will be share both a recording to the webinar, the slides, and updated frequently asked questions. >> I'm going to chime in though on that last question. It seems many people have asked essentially if the technology is already installed.
So, if you feel that there is a way to have a baseline that is reasonable and believable in a building that has a technology already installed you should note that in your submission, and we will absolutely consider that. So, I don't want to scare anybody away and say that we wouldn't look at that. But just generally speaking as Rois has said, we need to have a clear baseline to understand the incremental change that the technology has delivered. >> There's one more question I think we could ask, and if the technology is software, for how long does it have to be donated? >> For, again, the minimum amount of time that it takes to achieve a generalizable result, which in most cases, is one year. >> Great. Thank you. Well, thank you again.
We'll be following up and we really look forward to your submissions. Thanks for joining us today. >> Okay. Bye.
2024-06-28 06:08
