GSA/DOE 2019 RFI Technologies that Improve Building Health and Resilience
>> Andrea: Okay, I think we can go ahead and get started. Hello everyone, and welcome to today's webinar, on the Joint GSA/DOE RFI for Technologies for Healthy and Resilient Buildings. We're going to get started momentarily, but before doing so, just a few logistics. Today's webinar is being recorded, and will be shared with our mailing list, as well as posted to the GSA website. You all are in listen mode only, but you can use the Q&A button at the bottom of the Zoom panel to open the Q&A and ask questions, and the Q&A will happen after all the presentations, but you don't need to wait to ask questions.
In fact, we encourage you to ask them well in advance. And with that, I'd like to turn the presentation over to Kevin Powell, the Director of GSA's Center for Emerging Building Technologies, and the GPG Proving Ground. >> Kevin: Okay, thank you so much Andrea, and I want to thank all of you for having taken time out of your day to join this webinar. This is our GPG Program's 10th birthday. And truly, actually, it is all of you. It is is the people who have been interested in our program, everything from casual presentations of capability to full participation in the program, submitting to the RFI, being part of a test bed, that's really made this last decade feel so consequential.
So over the next hour, we'll give a brief overview of the DOE and GSA Test Bed Programs that you'll be submitting your information to, and the types of technologies that we're looking for, and the mechanics of submitting information to and participating in our program, and we'll leave plenty of time for Q&A, that's really what this is about. So next slide. Big picture, each year, GSA and DOE identify topic areas where we feel there are emerging technologies that can improve commercial buildings broadly, and Federal buildings specifically, for GSA. But that these would-these are technologies that are essentially unproven. We'll talk a little bit more about that in a minute.
And really, the field validation for folks to have confidence in deploying them. So, this year, we are focused on resilient, efficient, healthy buildings, more specifically technologies that maintain healthy indoor air, that increase building resilience, and improve on-site photovoltaics. Before we do that, Andrea, I wanted to run that first poll, just to get a better sense of our audience. So, if folks could respond to this poll, that would be-that would be great. And then, Andrea, I don't see results, but that doesn't mean anything, I guess? Do you see them? >> Andrea: Yes, so we have about 91 people voting, we'll give it just another minute, and then I will share the results with everyone.
>> Kevin: Great, thank you. >> Andrea: I think they're trickling in, I'll go ahead and end the poll. >> Kevin: We've got a lot of small business here. That is exciting. So, it's actually a kind of an interesting mix, I have to say.
But really, nearly half of you are small businesses, and that's something that certainly GSA is very, I mean, just generally speaking, we are very supportive of small business, but there is actually some specific, essentially programs that are really designed to support that. So I'm really glad to see that in this response. Let's move on to the next slide, Andrea? So, just, I guess you could say, a quick introduction about our-about us, folks you're going to be talking to today, you have myself, of course, I am the Director for the Center for Emerging Building Technologies at GSA, so rightly, I guess you could say I'm the instigator along with some colleagues over at Department of Energy. Next up is Robert Meagley.
Robert is the new guy on our DOE team, so as the new guy, we tasked him with covering not only his own program at the Solar Energy Technologies Office, but also the two other program offices, who are responsible for this RFI with us, that is the Building Technologies Office, and Federal Energy Management Program. Next up will be Wale Odukomaiya. He is our Technical Lead for this RFI.
He is with the National Renewable Energy Lab, or NREL. Wale will provide more detailed description of the types of technologies we're seeking, and last, and perhaps most importantly is Michael Hobson, who is the Project Lead for this RFI, and he is going to cover all the logistics, and mechanics in your submission, what to expect if you're selected as a semi-finalist, in particular. Next slide.
Just take a couple of minutes to describe our GSA Proving Ground Program, and then I'll turn it over to Robert. Next slide. Just a sort of big picture snapshot of GSA. We are the landlord for the Civilian Government. That means we really do just one thing, and because of our scale and mission, I think we do it remarkably well, if I say so myself.
But basically we build, operate, and maintain commercial real estate that provides state of the art workplaces that help our tenant agencies deliver their programs at best value to the taxpayers. So that means we really look to drive down costs, and operate essentially the most efficient and most effective buildings possible. One way we do this is by smart investments in next-generation technologies. Next slide.
The, I guess the key thing, and some of you may have seen this, and others maybe not, is this so-called technology valley of death. And that is really what this program, or better to say this joint program, is really about. We started the GPG program, as I mentioned, a decade ago.
And it was really stood up to answer a simple question that our Commissioner asked at the time, at that time, this was another previous crisis, and you know, this was the big recession of 2008, there was the Recovery Act, as it was called, we invested a lot in innovative technologies, and the Commissioner essentially asked us, well, which of these technologies deliver best? That is what the program has stood up to answer. It was very successful. We operationalized that effort as the RFI that we're discussing right now, and we've issued that annually ever since. Next slide. So, I think the good thing about turning 10 is that you can look back, and see where you've been, and assess.
And in short, as of last year, COVID has delayed this [stuttering] blah! [Chuckling] It has delayed our tracking of this year's numbers, but we've evaluated more than 70 technologies, and 15 of them, we've invested in and are deploying widely. And those technologies, and this is really the bottom line for a program like ours, they're delivering a lot of savings for our agencies. So fifteen million-more than fifteen million annually, nearly two hundred million over the life cycle of those investments, and they all have good payback, and they all are technologies that we can operate, install, and our tenants find effective. Where they affect tenants.
That's really the whole point of the program. That's what we're looking to achieve out of this RFI as well. Right? We're looking to get some of those, most innovative technologies where there has been that research investment, and then we're going to validate that they work in the real world, and then invest in them, assuming that they deliver. With that, I'm going to turn this over to Robert. >> Robert: Thank you very much, Kevin, and hello everyone.
It's my pleasure today to represent three distinguished Department of Energy organizations collaborating in this RFI. The Solar Energy Technologies Office, SETO, The Federal Energy Management Program, FEMP, and the Building Technologies Office, BTO. First, I'd like to describe the Solar Energy Technologies Office, my office.
Next slide please. We at SETO fund early-stage research and development in photovoltaics, concentrating solar thermal power, soft costs, system integration and then my sub-team, manufacturing competitiveness. We share the goal of seeking to improve the affordability and reliability of solar technologies for domestic benefit. As I said, I hang my hat in the manufacturing and competitiveness team, and that works on companies and groups creating and developing solar technology, skilled workforce readiness, and similar projects that facilitate cost-reduction, reliability and commercialization.
Overall, SETO de-risks innovative concepts and moves them on the chart, you can see, if you start from the left, to the right, is maturity. And as we de-risk various programs in these vertical categories, they become more bankable, they lose risk, and they ideally will both attract growth or participation in some of the work force programs, or for some of the more commercial programs [audio cuts out], subsequent investment, and scale up to commercialization. Obviously from the way this chart is set up, you can see that collaboration- We can see the collaboration is extremely important to the function of the team. Without the collaboration being strong and robust, we wouldn't nearly have been able to manage more than 375 active projects in 38 states and the District of Columbia.
And the breakdown is about 25% of these are businesses and non-profits, 40% leveraged skills and technologies, and techniques available at our national labs, and then about a quarter of these programs are at universities. So you can see that we're hitting stages across this chart, and across the country. The overall thrust is to enable domestic innovation and leverage our entrepreneurial spirit to advance new ideas, and remove barriers in solar energy. Next slide please. >> Andrea: And Robert, just a quick note, that your screen is all black, so we're not seeing you as you're speaking.
>> Robert: Yeah, I apologize, I'm having a real technical issue, I'm going to go to a back-up camera here. >> Andrea: Okay, no problem. >> Robert: Thank you for pointing that out. Can you see me okay now? >> Andrea: Yes, thanks.
>> Robert: Alright, well, I don't think you needed to see my face for the description of SETO, but if you do want to follow up, this will be the person to contact first, for sure. So I'm glad you can see my face now, but let's talk about the Federal Energy Management Program, or FEMP. FEMP facilitates strategic energy management, and enables federal agencies to meet energy-related goals, ensure that mission assurance occurs during normal operations, and importantly, prepares for mission assurance during conditions that impact the normal operations. FEMP is working with its Department of Energy counterpart offices, like SETO and others, to connect federal agencies with technology providers for resilient, efficient, and secure solutions. The point of contact if sites or agencies are interested in participating, and would like to connect, please contact Hayes Jones, next slide please. Now, we are going to consider the Building Technologies Office, or BTO.
The BTO invests in energy efficient related technologies to make homes and buildings more affordable and comfortable, and make the United States more sustainable, secure and prosperous. The commercial buildings sub-program is focused on accelerating voluntary uptake of significant energy performance improvements in both existing and new commercial buildings, and so I'm sure you can see how field evaluations really do play an essential part in this program, as these test bed projects provide incredibly valuable real-world performance information and feedback for technology, research and development, and in our office, our organization, and beyond. Next slide, please.
So, this graphic, I think, is pretty amazing in that it really shows how many different partnerships there are within those organization, with non-Federal organizations and group, and that play an integral role for these field evaluations of technology. These voluntarily structured partnerships can provide an open and [inaudible] pathway to identify a range of technical needs, in identifying the unknown-unknowns, as well as to provide field sites that may be applicable for evaluation across multiple technologies and systems. Let's see, the Building Technology Office partners with 250 commercial organizations through the Better Builders Alliance, and Better Buildings partners represent market leaders that are driving innovation and leading the way for energy reduction.
They represent 32 of the Fortune 100 companies, 12 of the top 25 U.S. employers, and remarkably, 30% of all commercial building floor space in the United States. It's, I think, critical to point out that a number of these partners have volunteered their buildings for the opportunity that we're-for the unique opportunity that we're discussing today. So, I can summarize by saying that these three parts of the Department of Energy-SETO, FEMP and BTO-are excited to participate together in this RFI.
The opportunity to field test and prove emerging commercial technologies is synergistic with our goals in our organizations, and the goals of the projects that we manage, and the goals of ultimately progress of the United States. Technology that can make more energy economical, efficient, resilient, safer, and more comfortable buildings is important for meeting America's future energy needs. And with that, I thank you very much, and I'll pass it on to Owale. >> Owale: Alright, thank you Robert for introducing the various DOE programs that are partnering with GSA on this, and thank you, Kevin, for introducing the program and the GSA side of things. So I will speak a little bit to more the specifics of the RFI and what we're looking for, from a technology standpoint. Next slide please.
Alright, so, as was previously described by Kevin, in terms of technology, maturity, what we're really looking for is pre- and early commercial technologies broadly used, readily available, commercial technologies that are broadly in use and readily available today are not appropriate for this. We really want technologies that have not been commercialized or that are early in the commercialization process, and the idea is to use GSA's extensive stock of buildings as a proving ground, which will achieve deeper market penetration of these technologies. Again, as Kevin mentioned, every year, we kind of target a different subset of technologies.
This year, in particular, we're interested in four kind of broad technology categories. First, our energy-efficient indoor air quality management technologies. Second is ventilation strategies to promote healthy indoors, the third is high efficiency on-site solar PV and storage, and lastly, energy-efficient resilient technologies that extend a building's ability to survive in a passive manner, disconnected from the grid, and continue operations. Next slide please.
Okay, so to go a little bit deeper on each of those four technology categories, so with the first again, we're looking for efficient indoor air quality management technologies. What we are looking for here is technologies that combine energy efficiency and indoor air quality as an integrated requested. So, historically those two things have sort of been treated separately, and so we're looking for technologies that integrate those couple examples of what that might look like, are multi-zonal sensing and control technologies, or sensor-driven indoor air controls that sense whether its occupancy, temperature, or whatever, and control the indoor air accordingly. Next slide please. So, for the second category, we're looking for integrated, efficient ventilation strategies that mitigate threats for air quality and this is kind of a timely topic that we're targeting, with obviously multiple threats to the indoor air environment, including global pandemics, wildfires that we've seen in the Western regions of the U.S. So, some examples of the type
of technologies that we're targeting there are higher performance HVAC filtration systems, improved air sealing in ducts, and also efficient decentralized air filtration that can improve the health of the indoor air environment, without necessarily requiring major retrofits or upgrades to the central HVAC system. Next slide please. Okay, and on the PV and storage fronts, examples of what we're looking for there include high-efficiency PV, with improved materials of construction, fabrication processes, and/or installation methods, building integrated photovoltaics are of particular interest this year, and also just generally innovative PV systems, and associated storage, are of interest as well. Next slide. Okay, and with the fourth and final category, again, we're looking for resilient technologies that extend a building's operation.
So examples of this might be advanced opaque retrofit envelope technologies that support passive heating, cooling, and/or ventilation. Window retrofit approaches, such as snap-on panels, or attachments to windows that improve energy efficiency, phase control, or load coordination, software solutions that enable control and privatization of power, to critical loads, whether that be through load point mapping and identification of critical loads, or other kinds of software control approaches. And also water conservation technologies that enable continued operation, that support continued operation when water supply is disrupted. Next slide.
Okay, so as part of the program, an important question that we ask is how do we measure success of these technologies? And I think there is kind of two high level categories. One, in terms of the technology itself, and how it performs, and the second is sort of the financing of the technology and ensuring that it makes sense from an economic perspective. So with the first one there, we're really looking at, and these are questions that we ask as part of the application process, which we might be able to talk about in a couple minutes, we're looking for the impact in terms of duration of maintaining services for productivity, continuity of operations, improved air quality and occupant comfort, and from the economic standpoint, we're looking for impact in terms of payback, energy savings, or utility cost savings, or any combination of the two, at both the component or technology level, and the whole building level.
Next slide. So, Michael will now talk about the specifics of the RFI itself, how to apply, and essentially what it means to participate. >> Andrea: Great, and thank you, thank you Wale, Michael, before you jump in, we just wanted to launch a poll, to get a little bit of feedback from you all about what technology category you are all interested in. So we will just take a moment. Okay I'll give you just a couple more-couple more seconds, then I'll end the poll.
Okay that's great, looks like a really even distribution. That's great to see. So Michael, with that, let me turn it over to you, to talk about the RFI mechanics, and what it means to participate. >> Michael: Thanks Andrea.
Yeah, very interesting to see the broad distribution of companies that are looking at these four categories, and thanks Wale, for introducing that. So let's talk about how to apply. We've had the RFI open for about a month now. As you see here, we have it advertised on beta.sam.gov.
We've been working on this for years. We feel as though the website should be self-pretty self-explanatory. If there are issues, I am the go-to person to ask those questions. One thing to note, and this is something that was brought up to us, is that the web-based application doesn't allow you to save your work.
Sure, some of you have realized that, with some frustration and we're sorry that happened. We feel it's a good idea to develop your information elsewhere. So on our-on our GPG/RFI page, we've created a Word version of the application, so that you can fill that out, you can develop it, and then you can copy and paste all the information onto the application. Let's go to the next page. So we are looking at five factors that we want to consider in selecting your technology. First off, innovation of course.
That's what our programs are designed around. Performance. We want-we're looking for something resulting in a significant improvement. Costs and the savings that with that, a positive return on investment is what we're looking for. The deployment potential, both in our federal facilities, and private facilities throughout the country, and then finally, the last one, the technical risk, and we need to understand the possible impact of changes that your technology could have. If you can go to the next slide? Benefits of participating with us and our program? So, participating with us, with-we're basically, we're a substantial GSA and DOE federal program.
Our programs have been around for awhile. We have high visibility. Engaging with us, we pilot each technology in realistic circumstances.
The M&V is managed by others. Go back to that slide? Seem to have gone backwards. There we go, thank you. So another benefit, you'll receive independent insights.
The results of these demonstrations will provide those independent insights, and how the technology will fit for public and private sector buildings. The publicly-available M&V findings will inform the public and private sector investment decisions, so that information will be out to everyone, and then finally, by validating real-world experience, you can expect to increase your technologies market acceptance, which we think is a pretty big deal. Go to the next slide. So, your contribution. So there's two different ways here.
With GSA, we have a, we have two different paths for the contribution. Either the technology is gifted, or we provide some type of alternative financing mechanism, like a utility energy service contract. The installation will be funded by GSA. With the Department of Energy, those details and costs will be negotiated between the vendor and the host site partner, so that will work out in the future. As far as what you're-and also going to contribute as far as time and travel-we do need your input on how your technology works. We need the national lab engineers on, to, we need your help to develop the testbed design, the project plan, the reporting, that's something that we definitely need you to assist us with.
Also providing some guidance on the installation, how do we commission your product, and then how do we engage the tenant, on its benefits? And then finally we do have on-site meetings. In lieu of the current situation, we hope that when we do start the demonstration, we will be having on-site meetings. You can expect at least one to three trips to that host site, for those meetings. One thing that you should note is that neither GSA or Department of Energy will provide direct funding to participate in the evaluation.
Go to the next slide. So, who is responsible for what? What are the rules and responsibilities? I'll ask you to look at the right side for what your responsibilities are for the vendor, first off, providing that technology in the ways that we described in the last slide, and then also supporting the design, the installation, the commissioning, and then helping us through the process. You can see here, where everyone else falls in line for the Federal programs, we do the overall project management. We coordinate and fund the M&V. We write the report.
The host site will oversee all the contracting. They'll manage the installation. They'll facilitate what getting a response from the tenant, and feedback, and then finally, the national labs will be doing the actual M&V. They'll be designing that project plan. They'll be giving us the evaluation of the site, collect all of that data, and then write the report.
So let's go to the next slide, please. Potential host sites. So GSA is a-as most people probably know, we're mostly office buildings. We own over 1,500 buildings, as Kevin said at the beginning. Ninety percent of those buildings are over 100,000 square feet, and what we should note, is that 80% of our portfolio's energy spend are with buildings that are 200,000 square feet or higher.
Another thing to note is GSA, over 80% of the buildings in GSA are within mild climate zones, and also one thing to really take note is that our portfolio can be considered ahead of the curve, as far as energy savings. By and large, most of our facilities are energy star 80 or higher. And then with the Department of Energy, so the host sites range from federal buildings that are outside GSA's jurisdiction, to privately owned buildings.
So a much broader range of buildings that you can choose from there. So, at this point, I think we want to take another poll Andrea. Take a brief pause here, so we can ask about your past participation in federal technology testing programs. So if you wouldn't mind answering the poll here. Let us know what and who you've participated with, so we can get an idea of what type of experience you have working with us.
And Andrea, let me know when you're ready to show us the results. >> Andrea: Yeah, we'll give it a few more minutes. Not a few more minutes, a few more seconds [chuckles]- Okay, I'm going to go ahead and end the poll so we can keep going. >> Michael: Wow! Wow, a lot of activity.
A lot of experience. That's really good. It's nice to know that some of you have had some past experience. Thank you for answering the poll.
Alright, moving on, let's go to the next slide. So the RFI timeline, this is important. As I said, we opened it up in the first week of October. We basically have four weeks remaining.
December 4, at 11:59 p.m., that is the cutoff for submitting your RFIs. RFI process is time-consuming, so I suggest you start filling-completing your application well before December 4. From that point, in December, we're going to be sorting through all of the applications.
We're going to be working together, GSA and Department of Energy, to review all of the applications, and determine which, which technologies have the best fit for what we're looking for. So that process will take a little over two months, until February 4. After that point, we will be notifying semi-finalists, after they're identified, hopefully by the next week, and then what we will do in mid-March, we will have a presentation from each of the semi-finalists, in front of a group of experts from GSA and Department of Energy. This is something that we typically do in person. We don't-we're not optimistic that will happen this year in March, so we'll do this virtually, but we will have 25 to 30 sustainability technology experts that will be on hand to witness those presentations, and then from that, we will be determining the finalists. So, for the rest of the month of March, we will be selecting those finalists, and then communicating that with the semi-finalists, on who has made the final cut.
How many we're going to be selecting has not been determined at all. It all depends on what we receive, and what technologies we have. Let's go to the next slide please. Assessment timeline. So if you're wondering what are you getting yourself involved in here, and what does the timing look like? You know, every technology has a unique timeline, considering how complicated the technology is, how complicated the installation is.
There are many factors, but typically we are looking at a two to two and a half year timeline. See here for the first four months, we're going through the selection process, and then site selection, and installation will occur during the summer and fall of this year. And then from that point on, for approximately a year, we will do M&V, of course, determining on the technology, and then approximately the same amount of time, sorting through all of that information, all of of the data, and writing the report. So starting now, most normal case scenario, we will see a completed report that will be ready for distribution by April of 2022.
And we can go to the next slide. So, on our website, GSA.gov/gpg, all of this information is provided. And there are also some email addresses, I believe myself included, we have a GSA email address, if you need to ask direct questions, you're welcome to do that. And I think we can go to the final slide. Alright, time for question and answer. Thank you everyone for your patience with all of this.
We've got about 20 minutes remaining here, and we've got a number of questions. So I will begin with the first, some of the questions that you entered into the Q&A. If you're wondering how to ask a question, on the bottom of your screen, you'll see something-you'll see a logo or a symbol that says Q&A. Go ahead and click that and enter your questions. Andrea, are we ready? >> Andrea: We're ready, yeah. So go ahead, I would-in the, we have them copied over, and you can go through the questions that are highlighted there in yellow.
>> Michael: Okay, well, first off, lots of questions. Thanks everybody for participating and we will hopefully get through most of these. If not, we are going to be providing this presentation, all of the Q&A and answers, and feedback to you hopefully by the end of next week.
So any questions about will we see the presentation? Can I have it? How are we going to do the Q&A? Where are those answers? We will be sharing all of the information with you within the next week. And if we don't get through all of the questions, don't worry, we will answer them, and that will be provided to you. So question number one here, the first question on the submission form asks if we are going to donate the equipment. What happens if we cannot afford to donate the equipment to be tested, as it is expensive? Well, the GSA's GPG program requires that technology be provided at no cost.
Let's get this answer here, unconditionally gifted, and this is the long answer. >> Andrea: And maybe Kevin, you want to just jump in and we'll just turn that question over to you? >> Kevin: Okay. >> Michael: Yeah, that's good. >> Kevin: Okay, sure.
So yeah, so the first thing is that you are submitting one application for true programs and in the case of GSA's program, you do have to provide the technology at no cost via this unconditional gift authority and the reason for that is really about our program mechanics, and it basically is taking you outside of the procurement process, and it's also really a much simplifying paperwork process, and really protects your IP in a robust way, that again is very, very simplified. On the other hand, if you're applying to the-and you know, your same submission, you could be selected. You could be selected for both GSA and the DOE, you could be selected for just GSA or just DOE. In the case of the DOE program, that is a different scenario, and does not require the gifting at all. So, and I don't know if anybody from DOE wants to speak more to that, to that side of things? Yeah? >> Andrea: Amy, do you want to speak more to that? >> Amy: Yeah, sure.
Okay, so with-in the commercial space we are working with private sector partners. So I'd love it if Hayes could talk a little bit about, thoughts about federal-- other federal, other non-GSA partners, but in the private sector, what we're doing really is facilitating the possibilities, and we are looking for you to work with the site to figure out the structure and a mechanism for getting the technology into the building. So it's a much more flexible, I think, platform.
But we are not funding the technology. We are not funding the installation, we don't have budget for that, and also we cannot compete funding for that, it would take us years. So it's really up to you to work with the site in order to get that technology into the building.
We then will help with the monitoring, verification, publication of the report, project management, and the sort of external pieces of that. >> Andrea: Great, do you want to-Michael, if we move on to the next question? >> Michael: Okay, next question here, so if the technology you want to submit is for outdoor applications only, would that be considered? So basically just used in outdoor spaces. Parking lots, pathways, green space, etc., is it's definitely not something you can use inside.
Wale, would you be able to answer that? >> Wale: Sure, yeah, I can take a crack at that, and feel free to jump in, anyone, [audio cuts out]...the four walls, or outside the four walls of the building, not necessarily important, what we're really looking for is a technology addresses one or more of the areas that was outlined during the presentation, so the short answer is no. Would need more details about the technology itself, and what it's doing to provide a better answer.
>> Michael: Thanks Wale. Next one, then, Kevin, I'm going to tee this one up for your. How much does the GSA, how much does GSA lease? And how do facilities compare on energy consumption to the rest of the U.S. commercial office space? >> Kevin: Okay, yeah, great question. So we, so basically GSA operates approximately 185 million square feet of federally owned space. We have a similar amount of space that we lease from the private sector.
A space we leased from the private sector, that is to say it's privately owned and operated, actually has an energy profile that's relatively similar as far as we know, to just typical office space in general. But the spaces that we own, the federal portfolio, it's about a third more efficient than the commercial counterpart, based on Seabeck's data. And a lot of that efficiency stems from the fact that we've had a whole series of targets for forty years to make federal buildings more energy efficient. There is also, you know, legislation like the Energy Independence and Security Act, that requires us to do that, so that's the basic-that's the high level view. But the important thing, I think, for folks on the phone to understand, or I should say on the Zoom to understand, is that so when you are putting your technology into place, the upside of the federal location is that it is a very efficient location that you-it's a high performance building, basically.
The other side of it is that low-hanging fruit has really been picked, so to speak. >> Michael: Thank you, Kevin. Another very good question here, building, and this one, Robert, I'm going to ask you to take this one on.
Building-integrated PV, does it have to be manufactured in the U.S.A.? >> Robert: In general, we are focusing on you know, facilitating expansion of, you know, domestic manufacturing capability and so we are specifically looking for United States manufactured systems. >> Michael: Great, thanks Robert. Next question, our technology addresses several of the categories. Do we apply different times, or include all information into one submission? I would-I would say that, well, I guess the question should be asked to Kevin and Andrea, in the past, how has that been handled? >> Kevin: I would say you want to, yeah, you want to peg where it fits best, and then go with that.
>> Michael: Okay. Moving on here, can a local government still sign up to serve as a potential testbed? Maybe that one would be good for you, Wale, or Amy? >> Amy: I already answered it, and please, yes [laughs] send me an email [laughing]. >> Michael: Okay. Great. Next question. For cost savings, are greenhouse gas emission reductions converted with a cost of carbon part of the savings that GSA is including in assessment factors? That one, I think we will throw over to you, Kevin. >> Kevin: Yeah, that's...so, you know, let me, let me be as diplomatic as I can possibly be.
I think that the answer to that question is going to depend on the outcome of the current election. >> Michael: Understood. Okay, next question here. Will there be an option to choose which host site we can implement our technology, or have we already chosen specific locations for each category or product? And the answer to that is, there are going to be options. We're looking for your input on a suitable location for installing and testing your technology.
Is there any-next question, is there a requirement for the scale of the proposed project? I guess the best answer to that is it depends on your technology. What we're looking for is a suitable testing amount that will give us a good idea of how your technology works. So yeah, that's a per technology requirement there. We do-we don't want to go over what we need. We got-we want to have just enough, now, if we're talking about indoor air, maybe we want to segregate a floor, or a section of a floor, or possibly a small building, something of that nature, but these-all of these things are dependent on the specific technology.
Okay, next question, I was confused by the difference between technology gifting, and UESC implementation. In the UESC scenario, does there have to be an existing UESC to tag onto? And then could you explain more about how the UESC option could work? I, so, Kevin, or Amy, can you take that? >> Kevin: Um...I am going to make a first cut at this, and I'll make a first cut at this, and then actually if Amy or Hayes or anybody else wants to dive in and add, that would probably be useful. So the first thing is that we have always been interested in doing a project like this.
That is to say a UESC, essentially an effort that is combined with a utility. We have not, to date, done one. And the kind of timeline can be-it can be [inaudible] for pulling together a UESC. So my-my advice would be, well, the first thing is, if, if you had a UESC project that is already underway, and that you're looking to insert this technology for evaluation as part of that UESC, and we have gotten really close to doing that, a couple of times, I think it's a fantastic idea. I think it's a total win. If you had no-if you were to submit a, you know, you're going to submit your application, and you're going to say here is my utility partner, and they're very interested in doing this as part of a UESC, I think we could figure out how to make that happen.
If you said here's the technology, and we'd like you to find the ability to finance it, via a UESC, that's probably not going to work. That would be my-that would be my answer, but I want to have Hayes and Amy take a crack at this too, if they're interested. >> Hayes: Sure, this is Hayes, I can jump in [audio cutting out], for saying that I think, you know, kind of the more, the more the partners come to the table in the application probably makes it more realistic. Again, like you haven't-haven't seen this come together as an example, but something where, you know, I would be interested in. But it's worth saying, I think the further along in the process, probably the closer to success, the greater chance for success.
>> Amy: I'll just add one thing, and that is that we have done projects where it's not a fully developed and finalized, you know, UESC, with utilities, so utilities contributing in a different way, whether it's through maybe some rebate, or pilot program, funding, or you know, so there are unstructured ways of having utility participation too, and we highly, highly recommend that. Because if you bring a utility to the table, the likelihood that they'll grow the opportunity through a rebate or incentive or other program is much, much bigger. So even if it's not a full UESC, I think bringing the utility to the table is something we definitely want to do. >> Michael: Thank you, everyone, for that response there, on that question.
I'm going to keep moving here. We are starting to run short on time. Question here, are we able to offer more than one new technology. Short answer is yes. I would recommend a separate application for each technology if that is the case.
Next question, can multiple companies participate as a unified solution in order to deliver a holistic solution? I think that's also a yes. Kevin Powell, if you could go into that just a little bit. >> Kevin: Yeah, we are super excited for that, that kind of approach, actually. So we recognize that solutions that are comprehensive, rather than just, you know, an individual widget kind of thing, particularly in response to this RFI, that is going to be a good thing.
So, in fact, it may really take a team to deliver. So in our last, our last RFI was focused on great interactive, efficient buildings, or GEBs, and every single one of those, the selected submissions was a team. >> Michael: Thanks, Kevin. Next question.
Does the GSA or the BTO have any residential buildings? Amy, I think that might be for you? >> Amy: Yeah, so, we have a whole program devoted to residential. However, we do work with a lot of multi-family stakeholders, including multi-family developers and operators. So if that's an opportunity for your technology, that'd be great.
If it is only for like single family homes, I'd say shoot me an email, let's talk about that. Because I'd love to introduce you to some folks on the residential team. I'll respond to your question and with my email, I think you already have that, too. >> Michael: Thanks, Amy. Next question, I'm going to ask Kevin for you to answer this.
Do vendors need to propose a demonstration location? >> Kevin: Short answer is no you don't, but you are more than welcome to do so. So if you have-if you think there is some location that you have in mind that you think would be perfect. Absolutely, that if you have some location you think is absolutely perfect, and you've already spoken to the facility manager, and they're on board, you'd want to include that in your materials, and sort of mention that for sure, but assuming that you don't, you don't have any knowledge of any of our buildings or locations or anything like that. What we will do is actually match you up with a location that will be a good way for evaluating your solution. >> Michael: Thanks, Kevin. Next one, and Kevin, you might be able to help with this, can a private host site purchase the equipment for testing? >> Kevin: Yeah, well that would be the DOE side.
And yes is the answer. And I don't know if you want to say anything else about that, Amy, or anybody? >> Amy: No, but I do see another question here that's kind of similar, and that is what specific private sector coordination needs to be complete? And I'll just say our process is to get information about the technology. The labs will help us develop site criteria, and then we actually go out to partners and say are you interested in participating with us? And once we get interest, then we will have a more detailed conversation with you and the lab, in order to understand if it's a good fit. I'll just say from lots of experience doing this, it's almost-it's really hard to find good sites. So being more generalized, more applicable, is going to suit all of us better.
It's going to end with a better result. >> Michael: Thanks, Amy. Here's an interesting question. What about equipment that may take special equipment or special job training to install? Is there a channel to donate funds to cover the installation costs with GSA? >> Kevin: I guess that's a question for me. We have-[background conversation] so the short, the short answer is, the structure of this gift authority requires us to fund the installation. That said, we have funded installation that is by, you know, essentially, by a vendor-selected, like on an innovative technology, we have worked with the vendor to identify perhaps their channel installer, and we would fund that.
I don't know if that fully answers that question, but the basic ideas that we need to pay for its installation [background conversation]. >> Michael: Okay, I think we've got time for just a couple more questions here. And this, I think Kevin would be another. This is similar to a former question, can technologies be bundled together to create a complete solution? >> Kevin: Yes. >> Michael: Okay.
Next question here, if the technology already has independent global third-party testing, does that have any relevance to the approvals of the new technology by GSA or Department of Energy? >> Kevin: I'll take a first whack at this, and others jump in as you see fit. We absolutely are looking for that independent testing. So when you're submitting your materials to the RFI, you should absolutely reference those tests. And that's part of what we're looking to, as essentially a prerequisite almost.
What we're really saying we want to have technologies that have some degree of validation, and essentially there's already been an alpha test, and what we're looking to do here is install this in a real-world setting that is the type of buildings that we actually own and operate, to have confidence that it will work, with the kinds of people who install and operate technologies in our building. >> Michael: Okay, great. Andrea, I think that we've run out of time. I think we're at the top of the hour.
Would you please close it out for us? >> Andrea: Yes, great. Thanks to all the panelists. Really interesting. And thanks for all of the attendees, we're really looking forward to your submissions. If you have additional questions, feel free to email us.
The contacts are here. We will be emailing out a copy of the slides as well as a recording of this webinar. I realize someone-we did get a comment that the online submission form is stripping out hyperlinks, and graphics, and text formatting. That's true. It does not do a great job with that. For links, you have to-instead of like adding a link to your Word, you actually have to, you know, put the entire long link there.
Like in parentheses or something, so you can't do hyperlinks. You can put links to graphics. That's a way you can upload files. So that's the best way of going about that. And we'll send answers to some of the questions that we didn't get to.
We'll send those along with the list of frequently asked questions that are already posted on GSA, back on our GPG web pages. So thanks again for all of you joining us, and we look forward to your submissions. Bye.
2024-06-22 12:46
