GSA/DOE 2020 RFI Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings Webinar
>> Welcome to today's webinar, everybody. Today you're going to hear about a request for information or RFI that's being issued by GSA in collaboration with the Department of Energy, and it's related to a Grid-interactive Efficient Building or GEB. My name is Jay Fine. I'm a project manager with GSA. And my role today is going to be kind of to be the bookends of this presentation.
I'm going to get us kicked off, and I'm going to do a little intro for you, and then I'm going to have some other people talk, and I'll come back at the end and close this out and do Q&A. And in between the two times when you hear me speak, you're going to get some really great information about the GSA program and the DOE program that are responsible for this RFI. And then you're also going to hear about the RFI itself. Next slide, please. All right, we don't let you talk because there's so many of you on the line. It would be really difficult for us to allow everybody to speak and ask questions.
So the way that we handle that is we allow you to chat your questions. If you notice the graphic, you'll see a big fat green arrow that'll give you an idea where you can chat your questions at. It's in that bottom right hand corner.
We really encourage you to chat as you have questions that come up. If they're answered later in the presentation, we'll just delete those out. But we want you to kind of build that question list for us as we go. It allows us to manage more effectively when we get to the Q&A session.
Next, please. All right, here's our agenda for today. So I'm going to give you a quick overview of Grid-interactive Efficient Buildings. I assume that most of you on the call are going to already be familiar with this, but we want you to make sure that you're in line with -- your understanding is in line with what our understanding of GEBs are. After that, you're going to hear about our programs, both the GSA Center for Emerging Building Technologies Program and the DOE HIT Catalyst and Better Buildings.
Both of those are associated with this RFI. Then you're going to hear about what we're looking for in the RFI and then the mechanics of it, how you submit things, how it gets evaluated, and what your participation is going to be like. And then we're going to jump into Q&A after that.
I do also want to mention at this point originally this was scheduled for an hour. We have extended -- we got all the presenters willing to stay for up to 90 minutes. So if there are enough questions, we will stick around and try to cover those in a 90-minute session. Next, please. All right, so what is a Grid-interactive Efficient Building? If you take a look at that first graph on the left-hand side, this is what a typical commercial building would look like. Across the x-axis is time running from, say, like midnight to midnight, and then up the left hand or y-axis, you've got your energy demand.
So you can see as, you know, typical building during the day, you increase your energy demand throughout the day. If you go in and go to the second graph, that graph is an energy efficient building. So you put in energy conservation measures, you apply those, and you can see kind of that line where it's shifted downward, where you're consuming less energy. Well, that's a great thing, but you still have the same curve that's available throughout the day for the demand for energy. If you go to the third graph, this is where you've put in some type of on-site generation.
In this case, it'd be solar PV. So when you have that, then this creates a shift in that second curve where when the sun comes out, your demand goes way down because you're satisfying that with your on-site generation. While this is great, what it doesn't do is provide that smooth type of demand curve that we're looking at for Grid-interactive Efficient Building. So if you look at the fourth one, what they've done there is you're using shifting and shedding of the loads where you're creating this more smooth line that's more friendly for the grid.
Next slide, please. All right. So why are we even interested in GEBs? So the first thing is, there's a big opportunity here, right? Buildings consume a huge amount of US electricity, 75%, and they're driving that peak generating capacity. One of the things is that GEBs have been around for a long time, but technology is finally catching up. So now we have these connected and smart buildings that allow us to do things like operate at specific times in different output levels for different components in the building.
It provides us a lot of flexibility. So what we're looking for here is ways it can create kind of a win-win. The buildings can benefit because we can reduce the energy costs and also the utilities benefit because we're able to spread out that demand across and provide better grid management. Next slide.
So why is this good that we're issuing this RFI jointly? Well, first of all, both of the programs provide you with an opportunity to get measurement and verification, real world operating buildings. And both programs will allow us to validate your technology's performance. When you respond to the RFI, you submit one response, and we consider that for one or both programs, one or the other, or both. So you submit one application for both programs.
It also gives you access to a large portfolio. So GSA has a very large federal inventory, and then on the DOE side, they have access to a very large commercial inventory. Next. All right, here's today's presenters. I'm the one on the left. As soon as I get through this slide, I'm going to turn it over to Kevin Powell, who's GSA's program director for Center for Emerging Building Technologies.
Kevin is going to talk to you about the program from GSA that's responsible for this RFI. Following Kevin, he's going to turn that over and Cedar Blazek is going to speak to you. She's from the Department of Energy. She's a project manager out of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. She'll talk about the same types of things that Kevin does, but only on the DOE program as opposed to the GSA program. And then following that, Rois Langner, who's with NREL, senior engineer in their Commercial Buildings and Research Group.
She's going to tell you about some of the details around the RFI. And then when Rois is done, I will circle back and get us over the finish line and finish this up and head into Q&A. Okay, with that, next slide, and I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Kevin Powell.
>> Let's see. Can -- oh, good. Sorry. Yes. Hi. Thank you for that introduction, Jay. And so a few words about GSA, one of our two co-sponsors of this RFI.
And so what I want to do over the next couple of slides is just to frame up why GSA is interested in a GEB strategy. So next slide. GSA, for those of you who aren't aware, we are the -- we are the landlord for the federal government, the civilian federal government. So we own all of the -- I should say we manage on your behalf, that is to say the taxpayer's behalf, about just under 9,000 properties for over a million federal employees. That gives us the largest single portfolio of commercial real estate in the country. And we spend a lot of money on energy cost.
It's actually one of our single largest recurring expenses. Our buildings are already efficient. So we're looking for strategies that can help reduce that cost, even though we have already this efficient portfolio. Next slide. We've had a program, this proving ground program as part of our Center for Emerging Building Technologies for about eight years at this point.
And the reason that GSA launched this program is to essentially validate the innovation that is out there. That is to say there's an awful lot of new technology that promises to be able to do things better than we've ever done them before. And certainly what you're going to hear about in terms of this GEB strategy is exactly that sort of thing. It's just that we haven't had the field experience to really know that these work in the real world of our operating buildings and the way we install things, the way we buy things, and then the way we manage things.
And of course, to the degree that there's tenant impact, that our tenants are going to accept it. So we've had this program of field evaluations for about eight years to help us, to sort of, to separate the, shall we say, the wheat from the chaff is what I was going to say. Next slide. It's had a -- the program has had a really significant impact on our agency, and I think actually really in the broader world of commercial building technology. To date, there's been as you can see, almost, you know -- more than 600 applications that, you know, people have submitted to request for information over these years.
Seventy of those applications have been accepted for field validation. We've publicly published results on about half of those, little more than half of those. And then, you know, 15 of those technologies are ones that we have found to be very essentially applicable to GSA's portfolio. We've been deploying them relatively, aggressively, and broadly. And so what you can see from that bottom-line right there is that we're saving nearly $200 million over the course of the lifespan of those technologies based on that investment. So I think, again, it's something that our agency takes note of.
It's something that we all want to continue to essentially realize and we think there's, potentially, the greatest ever savings could be associated with this particular RFI. So next slide. And this slide really, I think, conveys what that opportunity is and why we're participating in this RFI, in fact, why we've shaped this RFI. Rocky Mountain Institute did a study for us last year. And they looked at what would be the impact of this Grid-interactive Efficient Building strategy if we deployed this across our portfolio.
And I think everybody would say that bottom line was pretty eye-opening. That is to say we're talking about a $50 million annual savings. And as I said, you know, we're only talking about $380 million of total energy spent, of which a fair amount is in process loads and so, therefore, is not really subject to the strategy. So this is a remarkable -- potentially, a remarkable amount of cost savings. And a lot of the reason that that can occur is for, as Jay had stated at the very beginning of this call, we're flattening out that demand.
So those demand charges that we're seeing would essentially be minimized -- will be substantially minimized. And I think the key thing is -- and this is what I'm hoping all of the, you know, the folks on the phone and respondents to RFI are going to sort of help share with us, we know how to make an efficient building. We have a lot of technologies, we've done a lot of evaluation of those technologies, and we've actually done a lot of deployment. That's how we've achieved that savings. What we know a little bit less about is how to manage that efficiency along with -- we've actually made a fair amount of investment in, you know, on-site renewables. We have actually, also in some cases, made some investment in energy storage, but what we don't really know is how do we sort of optimize across all of those things in a manner that gives us load flexibility while maintaining occupant comfort.
So that's I guess the big picture idea. It's something that I've got to say I'm super excited to see realized. I think we, as Jay had said also at the outset, it's something we've understood we could do for a while or had hoped we could do for a while.
But I feel like technology, we feel that technology has finally caught up to a place where we may be able to actually demonstrate that it is achievable. And with that, I'm going to turn this over to Cedar. >> Great. Thanks, Kevin.
As Kevin mentioned, I'm Cedar Blazek. I work in the Department of Energy's Building Technologies office and help manage our High Impact Technology Innovation Catalyst or HIT Catalyst program. The HIT Catalyst supports research and development of building systems optimization and technology solutions that improve whole building performance and contribute to ultra-low energy buildings.
Field evaluations play an essential part of our program as these testbed projects can provide valuable real-world performance information and feedback for technology R&D in our office and beyond. Next slide. Partnerships with other non-federal organizations play an integral role in technology field evaluation. Voluntary structured partnerships provide an open and ongoing pathway to identify a range of technical needs, as well as provide field sites that may be applicable for evaluation across many different types of technologies and systems. The Building Technologies office partners with over 250 commercial organizations through the Better Buildings alliance. And this slide just gives you an idea of some of the organizations that we partner with.
Next slide. These Better Buildings partners represent the market leaders that are driving innovation and leading the way for energy reductions. They represent 32 of the Fortune 100 companies, 12 of the top 25 US employers, and 30% of all commercial building floor space in the US.
A number of these partners have volunteered their buildings for the opportunity that we are discussing today. And you'll hear more about that from Rois in just a minute. Next slide. And finally, why are GEBs important to DOE? At the Building Technologies office, we're conducting Grid-interactive Efficient Buildings research to help bring connectedness and the related energy savings across the entire building sector. We envision a future where both commercial and residential buildings adapt and improve the comfort, productivity and health of occupants while simultaneously reducing energy costs and acting as a resource for our nation's electric grid. We echo many of the same interests in GEBs that Kevin and Jay have previously mentioned for GSA.
And that's all you're going to hear from me. So I am happy to move to the next slide and hand the presentation over to Rois Langner at NREL. >> Thanks, Cedar. And again, yes, I'm Rois Langner.
I'm a senior architectural engineer in the Commercial Buildings Research Group at NREL, and I'm going to be talking about the details in the RFI and what we are looking for. But before I dive into that, I really want to point this out that it's important to note that this year's RFI is different than those in past years. Past year RFIs have focused on individual technology categories, seeking technologies that push the edge of energy efficiency for installation in a host site. This year it's different.
In order to truly achieve a Grid-interactive Efficient Building, we are looking for a much more comprehensive solution that incorporates energy efficiency and load flexibility of multiple building end uses together. And to make this possible for you to respond to this request, this year we've pre-selected a number of host sites and provided building characteristic data so your responses can be directed specifically to those sites and their building systems. You are also welcome to recommend your own host site if that's preferred. And I'll be explaining more of the RFI requirements, including our site selection criteria and what we're looking for as I go through the upcoming number of slides.
Next slide. RFI requirements, at a minimum, responses to this RFI will encompass three of the following energy saving and demand flexibility attributes. Energy efficiency, which of course is reducing overall building energy. Load shed, which is reducing peak demand for a short period of time. Load shift, shifting the timing of energy use to minimize peak demand and modulation of electrical load at the sub seconds to seconds level. This is the capability to provide small scale distributed grid stability and balancing services by automatically increasing or decreasing power demand or reactive power of particular equipment in a building.
Next slide. Also really important, these are requirements of the RFI. And again, we want responses to be as comprehensive as possible, so to the maximum extent possible. And this answers one of the first questions here, responses to the RFI should leverage existing equipment when possible, or propose new energy saving, energy generating, and/or energy storage technologies to achieve the full GEBs solution. We're also looking for the responses to include a software solution that can integrate and coordinate the control of multiple building end use systems and distributed energy resources. This software solution should include, at a minimum, the ability to integrate, control, and establish trends of multiple building end use systems to reduce energy consumption and shed and shift electrical loads to reduce peak demand.
At a minimum, it should also provide the capabilities to support decision-making and changing building operations on a frequent basis in an effort to reduce peak loads and respond to demand charges, time of use, utility rates, seasonal variations in utility rates, or other building and occupant needs. If possible, the software solutions should offer communication capabilities to react to utility demand response signals and other utility service signals from independent system operators or regional transmission organizations. And also, if possible, the software solution should provide the capability to learn building energy consumption trends and use external input to predict energy needs for next day operations. Moving on to the third bullet point. We're looking for technology providers to coordinate and optimize the control of multiple building end use systems, energy generation, and storage.
So at a minimum, we'd like the solution to coordinate multiple building end use systems beyond HVAC and lighting. Additional end use systems include plug loads, on-site generation, thermal or battery energy storage, electric vehicle charging, or a combination of these. And if possible, we'd like the solution to integrate all systems with automated control and prediction algorithms, which I know is a stretch, but if that capability exists, we'd like to see it. And lastly, we'd like the technology providers to include and describe any required ancillary energy or engineering services to deliver a comprehensive guest solution. Next slide. Respondents to this RFI can be a single company or a team, but each type of respondent must include all capabilities required to deliver the proposed full GEB solution.
Do not respond if you are only proposing a portion of the solution. And if you are a company that can only propose a portion of a GEB solution, please see our teaming partner list. GSA and DOE have compiled a teaming partner list, which will be available during the time of the this RFI release through its closing. And the list is linked in the RFI and can be found on the GPG RFI page on the GSA website. The teaming partnering list is automatically updated with information you enter into the Google form.
And for your reference, we've also included links to the Google form and teaming partner list on this particular slide. Next slide. This is the criteria that we use to pre-select the host sites for this RFI. Note that the required criteria include a modern building automation system and also an engaged building manager.
Preferred criteria include all electric buildings, time of use, utility pricing and high utility consumption, and peak demand rates. If possible, we're looking for buildings with some of these more advanced systems, including photovoltaic systems, battery or thermal energy storage, and participation in demand response programs. Next slide. And lastly, I'll quickly describe the pre-selected host sites for this RFI.
The sites include seven public sector buildings. Within those buildings, we've included four GSA sites and three city sites that consist of one office and two primary school buildings. We also included four private sector sites that consist of one supermarket, one office retail building, and two hotel casinos. Again, we do provide technical attributes of each building's characteristics and systems in the RFI.
So applicants can submit a package of technologies and strategies to deliver a comprehensive GEB solution. Applicants are also welcome to submit responses to one or more of these locations, and they can even recommend their own commercial building to host the testbed as long as it meets the site selection criteria that I mentioned on the previous slide. So those are the details of what the requests are in this RFI. And with that, I'm going to pass it back to Jay who will talk about the mechanics and what it means to actually participate in the RFI.
>> Okay, great. Thank you, Rois. >> All right. So what I'm going to talk to you about is what are the steps if you want to apply in response to the RFI and then what are we going to do with that response. And then if you are selected, what that potential future involvement looks like.
Next slide, please. Okay. So on the slide here, you'll see two graphics. The one on the left is where you'll actually go to apply to the RFI. So the responses are collected through a government website called FedBizOpps.gov. And you'll see that solicitation number that's listed there as well.
On the right-hand side is something that's the -- it's downloadable, it's the actual application itself, has all the questions. I highly recommend that you download that, complete your response offline, and then cut and paste it into FedBizOpps. And the reason for that is because FedBizOpps will not save your information as you go. It doesn't save anything until you hit submit.
So there's a lot of really detailed questions. It'll really take a lot of time if you don't -- and you'll lose your information if you don't complete the whole thing in one sitting. A couple of really important things that I want you to know about.
First of all, at the very top of this, it says applications are due by Monday, December the ninth. If you look at the current FedBizOpps posting of the RFI, it will say December 2nd, we have agreed that we are going to extend that by a week. And our acquisition people are in the process of changing that.
So there will be an amendment, it will be December the ninth. And the other point I want to make is regarding amendments themselves. So when you get into FedBizOpps, at the very top, just below where it says GSA, the emblem for -- or the logo for GSA, there's a place that'll say, "Do you want to see if there are any amendments?" Make sure you click that button. We've already had amendments. Our original posting had difficulty with the hot links.
We've corrected that. So make sure you go to the amendment and get the most recent copy of the RFI. Next slide, please. Okay, these are the factors that we consider when we're evaluating your response. There's five things. The very first one is innovation.
And with innovation, what we're looking for is, what degree does this technology -- is it going to represent some type of transformational opportunity for both the federal and the commercial building sector? And the second item is performance. And under performance, what we're looking for is how well is your technology going to provide the GEB benefits that Rois pointed out? And those were things like energy efficiency, shifting, shedding, and modulating loads. And then the third thing is cost and savings.
So this is looking at the financial benefits of your technology. What's the payback going to be like? What's the lifecycle cost? What are all the installation costs? What is the cost of the technology? What are the benefits? And what are the savings? Number 4 is deployment potential. So we're looking to see if this is a unique solution for one building, or if this is an opportunity where we might be able to expand this and apply it to a broader range of both federal and commercial buildings. And then Number 5 is technical risk.
So here we're looking at things like, do we think it's going to operate the way it's intended once it's installed? Are there IT security concerns? Are there concerns about operators or O&M, or occupants of the building? Okay, next slide please. Okay, if you're selected for participation, this is how you would participate. So the first thing is about technology. And the way that GSA and DOE programs differ here are quite large. So for the GSA program, core equipment has to be one of two things.
It either has to be gifted to the federal government or it has to be provided to the program through an alternative financing mechanism, something such as UESC. You provided the equipment, we provide the installation on that, we pay for the installation. And of course, both the programs pay for the M&V for this. For the DOE program, the vendor, the provider of the technology is connected with the building owner, the host site, and the two of those get together and negotiate on both the details and the cost of the project. For time and travel, one of the things that's important to note here is that we really want you to be an -- we actually will require that you be an active participant. You be part of the project team itself.
So we use the Department of Energy National Labs. We use them as our third party, M&V. You would participate in things with them, things such as the test bed design, developing the project plan, and the evaluation reports. You'd review and comment on those evaluation reports. You also would be involved through providing guidance on how to install the technology, the commissioning, tenant engagement. If there's issues or problems that come up throughout the project, you'd be involved with solving those.
You would be just actively involved in all of the project team that's managing. You would be expected to be on-site; anywhere from one to three on-site meetings. It depends on the location; it depends on the technology.
But one to three is a good estimate of how often we'd expect you to be there. And then at the bottom, this is really important to note, so this says, neither GSA nor DOE will provide direct funding to participate in the evaluation. That means neither of those government programs is going to write a check directly to you.
You will not get paid for your participation in this. Okay. Next slide please. All right. So what are the benefits to you for participating in Testbed evaluation? So the first one is, you know, you get to be part of a high visibility government program that's well supported. The next one is you get to engage in this full-scale pilot. You get M&V that's provided by a third party.
There's no cost to you for that M&V. You also get independent insights regarding technology fit for public and private sector buildings. So what that means is you're going to get feedback. You're going to hear from people that are operating on-site. Building managers; you're going to get that feedback from them.
You're going to get data about how well you're performing, lots of really great stuff about your technology. And then you're going to get something that will help inform public and private sector investment decisions through publicly available M&V findings. So this is a tool that you can use and point to so that you can show people this is the data that came from this M&V and from this pilot study, so that they can use that information to make their own investment decisions about your technology. And then the last one is you get to increase -- oh, sorry.
My computer went to sleep, just a second. Well, that's terrible. Okay, you get to increase market acceptance by validating real-world performance. So you heard Kevin talk about kind of that dip in that -- the first user risk, we take that off the table.
We are the first users and we try to take that risk away from -- for their further installations. Okay, next slide please. All right, so here is the timeline for the RFI itself.
So, as I mentioned, it's going to close on December the 9th. Once that closes, we take those responses and we divvy those up and we hand them out to a bunch of really smart people who do reviews on those, and do evaluations, and they complete those by the end of January. At the end of January, we take their responses and we take that list and we develop a semi-finalist list. So we've narrowed down that list by February the 10th. And at that time, we will notify the semi-finalists and they will be asked to put together a virtual presentation. In the past, these have been about 10 to 12 minutes.
Because of the complexity of this technology, we may expand that a little bit, but I would expect probably no more than about maybe 20 to 30 minutes tops. So we give a presentation virtually on March 3rd or the 4th, to a panel of people from both GSA and from DOE. There'd be some Q&A at that point as well, but that would be the final piece of your application and participation in the RFI submission. And then we take that information and we'll select finalists no later than March the 31st. Next slide, please. Okay, this shows you kind of bigger picture, if you're selected, about what would happen for part of the -- for the installation and the M&V.
I want to make it clear though, this is an example and a pretty good estimation of what we would expect in terms of time. But the actual schedule will be developed once you are identified as a participant and connected to an actual test bed site. If you look at the graph across the top, it starts at December of 2019, the selection process takes about four months, which is what I just explained on the previous slide. After that, we would go into installation, which we would expect takes somewhere around seven, eight months, something like that.
And then we would move into an M&V period where we're collecting data, we're tracking how things are working. That takes nine to 10 months typically. And then after that, we stop the M&V and then we go into reporting, which can take somewhere around five to six months, I know that might feel like a long time, but there are multiple reviews, there's multiple divisions within the government that have to review those. So it does take a while back and forth.
Okay, next slide please. Okay, so here is where you can get some additional information on the RFI. On the left hand side is the website for the HIT Catalyst program. On the right hand side is for the GSA program.
On the GSA website, there's two things to note. One is there will be frequently asked questions related to the RFI, which is a bunch of questions that were asked in previous years, I think you'll find those useful. We'll also put the responses to questions from today, if they're not already on there, we will put those on there as well. So that would be a great place for you to get information.
And also I've noticed that somebody is already asked a question about if they can get a copy of today's presentation, and it is being recorded, and it will be posted on that webpage? Next slide, please. All right, we've reached the end. So this is Q&A session. Again, we will not unmute your phone, so you're welcome to continue to type questions into that chat box. I do also want to point out on this slide, if you notice right under Q&A it says gpg@gsa.gov, that's an email address that we monitor for questions related to the RFI.
So if something comes up after today and you want to send a question, you're welcome to send it there. I will tell you that we try to get to that every single day and respond, but it could take a couple of days because of the quantity of emails that we're getting related to the RFI. Okay, and so with that, I'm going to jump into Q&A. So presenters, if you will be prepared, make sure that you are on mute when you speak. I will read the question and I will identify who I think is best to respond to that.
So let me start with you, Rois. There is a question that says, "Does the means of achieving load shed and load shift need to be distinctly different?" >> So let's go back to the definitions of load shed and load shift. Load shed is an actual reduction in the peak demand. And load shifting is reducing the peak demand, but shifting that energy use to a different time of the day where it's either more friendly to the grid or maybe there is lower utility pricing at that time. So the way that we will look at this, as far as the measurement verification goes, is we are looking at the overall shed reduction, but also can we shift load to different times of the day? And the point of that too is so that our buildings can be more flexible.
So yes, there is a difference between load shed and load shift, and we are looking for a combination of those two types of strategies. >> Okay, great. Thanks, Rois.
Okay, Cedar, I'll let you address this question. It says, "How do we get involved with the Better Buildings Alliance? Our technology enables current value added applications to be added to Legacy buildings." >> Thanks, Jay.
I think the simplest way to get involved with the Better Buildings Alliance, first and foremost is to submit a response for this RFI. If you are looking for more information, either you don't submit to the RFI, or maybe you weren't selected, you can find out more information about the Better Buildings Alliance at betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov, it's a long name. You can just type Better Buildings into your search engine, it should pop up.
The website will provide more information about the program and how different parties can get involved. >> Okay, great. Thanks. Okay, Rois, I'm going to go back to you. There's a question about, "Will utility rate structures for each potential site be provided?" >> Right. So in our building characteristic data that we've provided for each
of the preselected host sites, we do provide an overview of the utility rate structure for each site there. However, that's an overview. So if you are selected or if you need -- if you're selected, then we'll be pairing you with the -- we will have conversations with the building owner themselves to go over more details about those utility rate structures.
And if you need more information with the utility rate structure to provide a better proposal, feel free to email us with that request and we can look into getting more detailed information for you. >> Great. Thanks. Okay, Kevin, I'll let you take this one. "Is the program only about new technologies or about the application of new and existing technologies?" >> Thanks, Jay. I think that the program, especially in this case, is about the application of new and existing technologies.
So if you think about what we're really talking about, I think the secret sauce, the part that really is new is the ability to integrate across a lot of things that are in fact, existing technologies. On the other hand, I would say that it's entirely likely that a response may propose some existing technologies, things that are -- and I think within the space of existing technologies, there's those that are widely adopted, and then there's a lot that are essentially existing but underutilized. My guess is that you could easily -- I could easily imagine a response that has some underutilized technologies, potentially some proven technologies, as well as this integration technology, that I don't think is widely available currently. >> Okay. Thanks, Kevin. I'm not clear about these two.
I'll give this to you, Kevin. We might have to ask for some further clarification. These are related questions or both about budget.
One is, "Do you have info available regarding budget and funding?" And then the other one says, "There doesn't appear to be a budget requirement in the RFI response. Is that correct?" You want to address that? >> Sure, although I think those are -- I thought you did a pretty reasonable job on that, Jay, on that slide that talks about this. So I think that the clearest way to put this is that, you know, the technology that you are -- the core technology that you're proposing that an applicant would be proposing, is something that we do need to receive. And again, it's going to be different. I mean, this is a complicated answer. But, so I'm going to break this apart for the federal side versus the commercial sector side.
So, on the federal side, our approach is that you are providing your core technology at no cost to the federal government via what we call gift authority. And gift authority is, you know, again, the federal government has many different ways of operating in its manner that, you know, again, has been shaped over the many years. But the core thing about gifting authority is that it's the simplest way for us to receive your technology in a manner that doesn't involve a lengthy procurement process and also protect your intellectual property. So that's the reason we use that. And as Jay also said, you're providing this core technology, we are providing the installation of that technology.
Now, there's some complexity, additional complexity this year. There's a couple of things that I think make that slightly more complicated. The first is that, in all past years and in this year as well, we recognize that there may be balance of system elements that are required to make your technology work that are not your technology. And those are things that we would then procure and essentially to make your -- they're ancillary and they make your technology work. The second thing that makes it a little bit more complicated this year, is that we're offering, and, you know, I think in many cases this might be a very appropriate thing, the ability for you to have potentially a utility partner, potentially an energy services partner that would essentially provide third party financing for a solution.
So you could, for example partner with a utility and deliver a solution via a UESC. So again, that's a little bit more -- that's a little bit outside the box of what we've done in the past, that's for the federal side. On the commercial side, I'm a little bit less knowledgeable and actually I might want to turn that over to you, Cedar, so I don't misstate something.
>> Sure. So there is a differentiation whether or not the technology is going to go into a federal building or one of the buildings of our commercial partners. We get far less involved in terms of the procurement process. So as part of this RFI, you know, we do offer up the M&V, but we do not pay in any sense for the technology.
And we allow the building owner, or the company, and the company providing the technology to work that out independently of the process. So it will just vary depending on the relationship and we allow that to work itself out. Hopefully, that's clear. >> Great. Thank you, Cedar and Kevin. I'm feeling a little left out, so I'm going to answer one myself. The question is, "Do you have interested utilities less listed as team partners or recruited?" So the answer to that is, if you go into the actual RFI itself, there is a place where you can put your own name on, complete a form where you can list yourself as a potential partner for others.
And there's also a place there where you can view a spreadsheet that lists everyone who has already completed that process, and who has identified themselves as an interested partner. So you can get that information directly from the posting itself. As I mentioned earlier, though, I do, the only way that will work is when you go into the RFI itself, make sure you click at the top where you see all the amended versions and go to the most current version of the RFI. Kevin, I think I'm going to circle back to you. Maybe you could take a shot at this one. "How many companies will you select?" Well, first of all, we should say, "How many teams will we select?" Because I'm assuming it's going to be a team that may be multiple companies associated.
There is currently budget -- and again, I'm going to -- I might need to defer back to Cedar on this. I think our intent is to select up to four -- yeah, four solutions, but -- and again, this is contingent, a lot of this is contingent on our M&V funding. And the M&V funding is coming from Department of Energy.
So, Cedar, am I correct that it's four -- I think there's some complexity to the sites themselves, but is four the correct answer? >> Yes, and I'll just emphasize that it is contingent on funding, and we do not have a set number of companies that we plan to select at this time. >> There you go. >> Or teams [brief laughter].
>> But four -- but it's M&V for four sites. >> Is budget -- >> Great. >> -- currently. >> I'll take another one here. So there's one that says, "For previously selected sites, how specific is the historical -- is the historic electrical metering data, just utility metering? Wondering about comparing the installed measures via the M&V without having great historical records?" Right. So there's two things.
One, when we do these, what we've done in the past is we create a baseline period where we collect data with -- either if there's not already sufficient BAS data, we'll go in and install meters that are necessary to collect all the information that we need. We run for a baseline period, then we install the technology and we check the difference. We also, at least on the GSA buildings, we have a pretty robust set of historical data. We generally have pretty good electrical metering. We have smart building data, we have a lot of information there that we can use, but we use that usually just as support and try to set up our own baseline.
I'm not familiar with on the DOE side, but I will let -- Cedar, do you have anything else to add to that or do you do know of anything differently that gets done on the DOE side? >> Actually, Jay, if you don't mind, this is Rois. I have a few things to add to that. So in the building characteristic data that we provided in the actual RFI, we do note any metered type of data that the building may have. Again, this is an overview.
So once we select the projects, we will be diving into that detail a little more thoroughly and looking at what existing data each of these buildings actually has. And the other portion of this is that the National Labs will be conducting the M&V portion. So as Jay was saying, we'll be looking into how to determine the baseline energy use, whether additional meters need to be installed, et cetera, so that we can really have a robust baseline database. I'm sorry. Cedar, if you have anything to add, feel free to jump in. >> Nothing from me.
Thanks, Rois. >> Well, Rois, while you're on, I'll let you have this one too. "Are universities or National Labs eligible for this RFI?" >> Well, the National Labs will be conducting the M&V, that might be a conflict there. So I will defer that over to Kevin and Cedar in a moment.
Universities are fine to be partners. So I would -- or applicants to the RFI as well. So I think the universities are fine. And National Labs, I'll defer to Kevin and Cedar on that. >> Kevin or Cedar, any thoughts about National Labs? >> So that's an intriguing question and one that I would -- I'd honestly say we'd have to get back to you on that as Rois said there's a potential conflict, but I don't actually -- I don't think so. I would want to verify this, but I think the short answer is a National Lab could easily submit a technology and I could easily see like -- and I assume that this is what this is really referring to, is that there are -- there may be some technologies that have been developed at a National Lab, in fact, there typically are that are in the process of being spun out.
And I'm assuming that's what is really being asked. And because, you know, we think of National Labs, just to be clear to everybody, all of these third party evaluations are done by National Labs. So when we're talking about the M&V we're providing, it's going to be a National Lab that's going to do that M&V. The conflict that Rois was saying is that it's a little odd for a National Lab to be evaluating a National Lab. So we want to make sure that we're okay with that. I will also say that in the past we've had a kind of a requirement that there's a path to commercialization.
So if you're a National Lab, you have a technology and you don't actually have a path to commercializing it, that's something that at least in the past, we've not looked favorably upon. In this particular case, again, I'd say we need to take this up and sort of get back to you on that. But that would -- that's a long and extemporaneous answer, and hopefully that helps. >> Okay, great.
Kevin, I'll let you keep going. "The UESC was given as an example of a finance mechanism for a project. Is there openness to alternative funding mechanisms that are tied to the GEB project?" >> Absolutely.
Do I need to go on? [brief laughter]. >> I think that's perfect. Here's a question, I'm not sure exactly what is this saying. So this says, "Can our agency observe the presentations via webinar teleconference?" I think you're referring to the presentations that I mentioned that the semi-finalists will give in -- at that March timeframe.
I'll take a shot at this and then I'll let everybody else weigh in. But I think that that is not the -- the purpose of those presentations is not for outside people to see them, but for our own evaluation internal and trying to select the finalists for the RFI selection. So I would say the answer is no, unless it's your own group that's participating, and then you would have to find access for them through your own means. Anybody want to add to that or other thoughts? Okay, great.
Here is one I'll take myself also. "So if additional meters are required for M&V, will the cost be absorbed by the building?" Typically, the cost for any additional metering is what we consider part of the M&V, and so that's part of the funding that GSA would provide. And, Cedar, I'll let you answer but I believe that's the same as true on the DOE side. >> Yes. >> Okay, perfect.
Not sure who should answer this? "Most innovative technologies require some level of influence over the building operators to be successful. How will the vendor provider be able to influence the facility operator if they do not have direct authority over them?" Kevin, do you want to take a shot at that? >> I will. And then I think actually Cedar should make a comment as well, but I can speak more to the federal facility and to how, you know, how this works.
As part of our selection of those facilities that we put forward that it is key to us that we had an engaged facility operator, we understand that that's on us, not on the vendor. So that engagement is something that we at GSA manage, to the degree that somebody submitting to this RFI is going to select a facility that is not one of the ones that we've already identified. We would want you to have at least had some kind of interaction -- I mean we would suggest, how about that, that you might have had some kind of interaction with some GSA person in selecting that facility to ensure that they're engaged. Certainly if somebody proposed a facility that was not one of the ones that we had previously identified as part of our own due diligence, we're going to reach back to the various folks that are associated with that facility from the -- and again, there's all -- you don't need to know how GSA is structured, but there are a series of people who need to be on board.
And we're going to make sure that, that actually is the case because act -- I mean, again, great question. Most of these technologies, I mean, this whole idea doesn't work if the facility manager is not on board. And then, I don't know, Cedar, if you want to talk about -- >> Yeah. >> -- again, I think get broader on the DOE on the Better Building side.
>> And so I'll just note from our Better Buildings partner perspective, all the buildings and facilities that are already included in the RFI, they have opted into this opportunity, and therefore already have some level of buy-in at their facilities. Most of them have spoken with their facilities operators and are aware of this opportunity and what that commitment might mean. So I would say that most of these folks already have some level of buy-in and we know that that's necessary to make this work. >> And this is Rois. One additional thing to add is in my experience in working through some of these M&V projects through these programs in the past is that the National Lab representatives can help facilitate that engagement piece of this between the vendor and the building owner or the facility manager.
Okay, great. Okay, I think we've worked through all the questions. Let me check real quick. Okay. Yeah, I think we have everything. So I will remind you if there are future questions, you can send them to gpg@gsa.gov,
and we will address those questions directly back to you. Thank you everyone for joining today. We're really excited about this RFI and really looking forward to seeing what types of responses we get. So thanks for your participation.
Okay, that's it. Have a great day.
2024-06-23 17:55
