>> Well hello everyone, and welcome to today's webinar on the joint GSA/DOE Request for Information for Technologies for Net-Zero Carbon Buildings. We're going to get started momentarily, but before doing so, just a few logistics. Today's webinar is being recorded, and we will be sharing with our mailing list a recording as well as posting it to the GSA website and our YouTube channel. You're all in listen mode, and you can use the Q&A button there at the bottom of the Zoom window.
The Q&A will happen after the presentations, but you don't need to wait to ask questions, in fact, we encourage you to ask them well in advance. And we're quite sure we won't get through all of the Q&A in today's webinar, but we will be following up with an email as well, with the top Q&A and answers to those questions. Over the next hour, we're going to give a brief overview of the DOE and GSA test bed programs you'll be submitting your information to, the types of technologies that we're looking for, and the mechanics of submitting information to and participating in our program.
And as we mentioned, we will leave plenty of time for Q&A, and if we don't get through all of your questions, we'll follow up by email. And with that, I'd like to turn it over to Jessica Higgins, the Deputy Director of GSA Center for Emerging Building Technologies. >> Good morning, everyone. And thank you for that nice introduction, Andrea. Thank you all for joining us today. We are very excited to have you and walk through more about the RFI.
So to get started, I just like to introduce myself, as Andrea said. I'm Jessica Higgins. I'm the Deputy Director of GSA's National Center for Emerging Building technologies. Next up, we have Hayes. She is the Program Manager for DOE's Commercial Buildings Integration Team, and the Building Technology Office. This group is sponsoring the RFI, along with Solar Energy Technologies office, and the Federal Energy Management Program.
Welcome, Hayes. Next up, we have Rose. Welcome, Rose. She is our Technical Lead on the RFI, from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Rose will provide a detailed description of the type of technologies that we are seeking this year. Next up, we have Jeff Wanner. Jeff is the Project Lead for the RFI, and will provide an overview of the logistics and mechanics of the submissions. And he will also provide details on what to expect should you be selected as a semi-finalist. Okay, now I'm just going to provide a brief overview of GSA's Green Proving Ground Program.
Okay, as many of you know, the current administration has set some very bold goals to achieve Net Zero emissions economy wide by 2050. GSA's administrator, Robin Carnahan, shared "We are eager to hear from industry about the emerging technologies that can help build on GSA's success, and Greening our footprint, and ultimately catalyzing innovation throughout programs like GSA's Green Proving Ground Program. Additionally, something we are extremely excited about is the Inflation Reduction Act. This will provide even more opportunities for folks like yourselves to help us transform our federal portfolio into high-performing, high-tech test beds for clean energy innovation.
Okay, just a few high-level stats on our program. We are the landlord of the civilian federal government. We build, operate, and maintain state of the art facilities, and our mission is ultimately to help federal agencies meet their missions and deliver critical services to the American people at the best value to taxpayers. One way we can accomplish this is via smart investments and next-generation technology. We started the GPG program about a decade ago, which is hard to believe.
The program was stood up to help us answer a simple question from our commissioner. We invested in a lot of innovative technologies as part of the Recovery Act, and he wanted to know which ones worked best, so that we might be able to direct our future investments toward these technologies on a more broad scale. The effort was very successful. We then operationalized this effort via the RFI we're going to discuss today, and this is an annual RFI. GSA's Center for Emerging Building Technologies, like I said, has been around for 10 years, and we are very proud that we have worked with the National Labs, and evaluated more than 100 technologies. Twenty-one of which we have invested in deploying nationwide.
With those techs delivering more than $200 million dollars in total life cycle cost avoidance. Now I'm going to turn it over to Hayes. >> Thank you, Jessica. I'm here representing the Department of Energy, three offices that are partnering as part of this RFI. And I am coming from our Building Technologies office, where I'm the Program Manager for our Commercial Buildings Integration Program.
Next slide please. So our Commercial Buildings Integration Program within the Building Technology Office is really focused on partnering, and for the purposes of this RFI, validating technologies in the field with our partner and commercial buildings. So we work closely with our Better Buildings Partners, which represent 36 of the Fortune 100 Companies in the U.S., 13% of all commercial building space,
to really connect National Laboratories with technology providers such as yourselves, and these recruited host sites, to provide technical assistance, and third-party measurement and verification for the technologies leveraging these relationships within the commercial building space. Within the Building Technologies Office, we also have a Residential Buildings Integration Program, and an Emerging Technologies Program that we work closely with together on validating these technologies and establishing these. And the next slide, you can see some of the commercial building partners that we work with as part of the better buildings, no work, and can help recruit from, to provide validation partners for the technologies identified through this RFI. Next, I'm going to turn to the Federal Energy Management Program, which is another office within DOE, that is participating in this RFI, and FEMP technology, FEMP mainly works with federal agencies to achieve their energy-related goals, identify affordable solutions, and facilitate these public-private partnerships. And their technology validation role, they facilitate collaboration with DOE, with the Building Technologies Office, Federal Partners, and National Laboratories, to connect potential validation sites with solution providers. So these can be validation sites beyond-federal validation sites beyond the GSA portfolio.
So really, a wide range of building types. And the third office that we are partnering with as part of this Request For Information is the Solar Energy Technologies Office, or SETO. They work on accelerating domestic PV research and development and supporting manufacturing and competitiveness, to de-risk technologies and move them into the marketplace.
So really excited to work with solar on validating these solar technologies and learning from their expertise as we move these forward in the marketplace. And now, I will turn it over to Rose, to give us a little background on what we're looking for, specifically as part of this Request for Information. >> Thanks Hayes, and hello everyone. I'm Rose Langer [inaudible].
I am going to be talking about the technologies and solutions that we are looking for through this RFI. If you were following last year's RFI, you will notice that this year's RFI is very similar. So I will talk through all of the technologies and solutions we're looking for, and I'll also highlight where we have a couple little changes to this request.
Okay next slide. As this RFI goes, we are looking for early commercial technologies and solutions. These are technologies and solutions that are ready for evaluation in occupied and operational buildings.
Technologies that are already broadly in use, and already readily available to the public are not appropriate candidates for this RFI. So we are really looking at this early commercial technology maturity stage. We have three higher-level categories of technologies of what we're looking for in this particular RFI. The first is high-performance, low-carbon commercial building retrofit technologies.
The second is on-site energy generation and storage systems, and the third is electric vehicle supply equipment. Next slide. So I'll step through each of these. So, in the first category, high-performance, low-carbon retrofit technologies, we're really looking for technologies that are going to improve operating efficiency in commercial buildings. Last year, we had this first category as well, low energy systems for improved indoor air quality, but we have an add-on here, and that is upper room germicidal ultraviolet technologies as well.
On the envelope side, we're looking for innovative envelope retrofit solutions that can really minimize the heat transfer through the envelope, and reduce air leakage into the building. Pueblos, if you all are familiar with pueblos, they still consume a lot of energy. They're a high-consuming and juice category in buildings, so innovative advance pueblo control solutions, we will be interested in those. And the next category here is novel technologies to capture, manage, and re-use waste heat.
And lastly, integrated building controls. And this could with technologies that can more seamlessly integrate into a building automation system, or control integrated building controls that can integrate across multiple building and juice systems. Next slide.
So, also under this high-performance, low-carbon retrofit technologies category is beneficial electrification. And what we mean by this are technologies that can efficiently electrify commercial building loads that have been traditionally been powered by fossil fuels. We recognize a large majority of this are going to be heat pumps. So the first two bullet points describe what we're looking for in the heat pump category. The first would be larger-scale, low global warming potential heat pumps.
That's greater than ten tons, or 120,000 BTU, and appropriate for commercial retrofit applications including cold climate zones. We also are interested in packaged heat pump systems with water heating or integrated with make-up error systems. Next slide. And the last bit under this high-performance low carbon retrofit technologies category are big house gas and carbon reductions. So these are technologies that use next-generation low or no global warming potential refrigerants, and also on-site carbon capture technologies for existing fuel fired processes at the site. Okay, next slide please.
The next category is on-site energy generation and storage systems. So examples of these technologies include cyber-secure solutions that can integrate on-site PV and battery storage with building management systems. This is really related to the last bullet on this slide, as well, so that could be control software that could integrate building loads with the on-side renewables, and demand management. We're also looking for building integrated PV, that includes roofing materials, glazing facades and canopies, and high-efficiency PV module-designs and their associated systems that could include improved racking systems. This next category is new to this year's RFI and that's wind-wind turbines. And I will emphasize that we are looking for on-site building or ground-mounted wind turbines.
So if it's a ground-mounted system, it has to be associated with the actual building site itself. And last, here, electric, thermal, and other low greenhouse gas energy storage systems. Okay, next slide. Under electric vehicle supply equipment, we're looking for technologies.
These are examples, again, so charge management solutions that can look at the optimized charging of zero-emission vehicles, but also coordinate it with building load, and optimize for carbon emissions. So that's one category that we would be interested in. Another is charge management solutions for diverse zero-emission vehicle fleets across multiple tenants as well, as is common in our multi-tenant building-commercial buildings across the country. And lastly, mobile and wireless charging infrastructure.
Next slide. And the last comment here, this is an if possible requirement for the RFI, but we would love to see applications that include insight into some novel financing approaches and/or business models that can really accelerate the uptake of the technology or solution. So again, this is-we would love to see this in the applications. It's an if-possible requirement of the RFI. So that is the end of the summary of the technologies and solutions we're looking for. So I'm going to hand it over to Jeff to talk about the actual RFI process.
>> Thanks so much, Rose. And as she just indicated, those are the categorical solution types that we're seeking this year. And I'll go into guidance for RFI submission, our internal review process, participation and expectations from technology providers, and our overall timeline.
If we can go to the next slide? For GSA in the broader commercial building sector, it is important that we quantify the applicable and effectiveness of technology through validations in this program. Toward that end, the criteria and expectations developed specific to the technology for each validation will likely fit into one or more of the categories bolted here. Validations will include measurement and verification of reduced emissions, primary energy savings or demand reductions, on-side energy generation, load management, improved operational performance and/or cost-effectiveness, oh, say and cost-effectiveness. Demonstrations of novel financing as Rose mentioned could also provide additional value. Next slide? Public and private sector validations completed through this RFI seek to highlight effective technologies and improve market traction for the technology providers.
Technology evaluations are led by third-party subject matter experts at the national labs, from site selection guidance through MMV and final reporting, those third-party experts will be leading, and really driving the validation from DOE's perspective in GSAs. Resulting reports will be distributed broadly throughout the Better Buildings Network, GSA, and potentially case studies and presentations at conferences. Validation of proven technologies are shared among GSA regional and facility energy staff as guidance for future improvements throughout GSA's portfolio. This is kind of, this program is really what's used in leverage by all of the committees and GSAs regional energy teams to get things implemented. This slide, and the one prior, highlighted the validation, success and outcomes, and the next few slides will unpack the mechanics, and really the gears and what's necessary to get things moving forward in this RFI selection process. Next slide.
To briefly describe our criteria for technology reviews. These are some of the categories we'll look at. Notable differentiation from options already proven, and solutions widely available in the market. Performance characteristics, and the benefits or improvements that these specific technologies provide. Quantifying the savings potential in terms of carbon reduction, energy savings, return on investment, and so on. Market and opportunity for the technology which will consider commercial buildings in both the private and public sector.
And then also how to-how ready the technology is for wider market deployment in the appropriate timeline. Our internal down-select includes technical analysis by subject matter experts at the national labs, review and rankings by Department of Energy, General Service Administration, and independent energy experts in the private sector. Finally, determination of finalists for validation by the GPG, Green Proving Ground Program leadership. Next slide? For validation of technologies, we must have all safety certifications, such as UL certification, and an established timeline toward compliance with better buildings, by, excuse me, Buy American Act, Trade Agreement Act, TTA. While not necessary for GSA validations, that is really critical pathway to being widely implemented in the Federal market, and something that we encourage having at least a good look at what that path would look like. Technology certifications specific to the technology, such as EPEAT, for solar flow techs are also expected, or steps toward achieving those should be communicated in RFI submissions.
For technologies looking to sell to federal markets, these certifications and compliances are really critical paths. Next slide? GSA has gifting authority, which is really what functionally allows for this program to work and these technology validations to move forward. What that requires is that these validations, GSA expects the technology and the core equipment would be gifted to GSA. GSA does cover the cost of installation and ancillary equipment or accessories that are necessary can be funded by GSA, however, the core technology must be donated. DOE funds the validation, so the lab experts that are conducting the UNV, and then reporting, is funded by Department of Energy. In the DOE hit validations, which would be the non-GSA sites, the equipment is typically purchased by the validation site with those negotiations being between the vendor and the host site.
These sites are the non-GSA sites, could be in the private sector, or in the public sector space, outside of GSA. We are open to existing relationships, and would suggest if you have partnerships that would prove good as test beds, that your submission would include those in the write-up. Throughout all the steps of the validation, site selection, installation, UNV and reporting, we want the technology provider to be included, and really expect that from you and your company to walk hand in hand. We want to make sure that the validation criteria and the outcomes meet your goals as well.
So we expect guidance on all aspects of the installation and the UNV process and availability for on-site, or audio-video meetings to facilitate these validations. Next slide. For both GSA and the DOE hit, there are a number of stakeholders this matrix tries to pinpoint all of them, but probably a few missing through.
A federal project manager will oversee and approve milestones, and really that's between the lab and the site, and then also the technology provider. The lab researcher or principal investigator will serve as the project lead on developing said criteria, and advising from site selection through final validation reporting or case studies. And they will work hand in hand with the technology provider to develop that criteria. Host sites are expected to provide leadership on facility background and baseline data collection. The technology provider will sort-will support on all matters throughout this. Security clearances for federal projects are a multi-step process.
All hardware and software will need to be scanned. Technologies that connect to buildings will need additional scanning through GSA. This requires a pretty extensive review, and for broader adoption in federal buildings, technologies will need fed ramp approval, and if that's critical or necessary for your technology it's advised that you have some roadmap towards that, and it helps us to understand that's been thought through. If there is a cloud-based component, it will need LYSAS [assumed spelling] clearance, as well.
I think that covers most of that slide, as well. Can we go to the next one? Jessica and Hayes shared some of the insights on market targets, but we wanted to highlight again the markets that are potential for validation sites for technologies through this RFI. DOE hit, which would be the non-GSA site, can reach any type of commercial building.
Historically in the private sector these have frequently been Better Buildings partners, but a broadened focus could include more small commercial buildings, and underserved markets. So, if those are a particular audience that your technology is well-suited to, we'd appreciate that. And then other agencies. I mentioned the non-GSA site could be a public sector building, may include local jurisdictions, a city-county, a state government, or other agencies, such as Department of Defense.
GSA's portfolio of buildings is distributed throughout the U.S. so a wide range of climate zones, and 98% of those being large office buildings. You can see on GSA's website, a map of the buildings, and location specifics. Next slide? The RFI submission details are currently available on SAM.gov, that link will be live. It's listed here, and you can reach the RFI there, as well as the RFI application material.
They can also be reached through GSA's Emerging Building Technologies website. Responses this year will be accepted through Friday, December 9, at 11:59 p.m. That is a hard stop. And any submission must be received by that time in the electronic system to be considered viable for selection. If you have any questions, we can provide assistance via email or phone conference if necessary. I believe it's on the next slide, the GSA email address for this program. That will come to one of us, and we will be prompt in responses.
GPG email contact is at the end of the deck. Next slide. This table provides a high level timeline.
I mentioned that December 9 closing date. We then move into our review phase, which at the first round here is GSA and DOE, by that early February date we expect to have feedback from all the national labs, and our technical subject matter experts, and that will be considered on making those down-selects to the semi-finalists. Semi-finalist notifications will be sent out along with some follow-up questions and follow-up materials that we'll look to have one on one communication with each technology moving to that semi-final presentation, and those semi-final presentations will be done virtually in a format like this, with the technology vendors able to present to a room of GSA committee members, which are across the country in facilities, and then also DOE staff, and a number of private companies that are interested in this program, and participate in the selection. Finalist selection then will occur in April, and with notifications likely in late April/early May of 2023.
The next slide kind of shows where the timeline goes from there. If we take that April 2023 as a start date, this is really what we look for in terms of getting those validations stood up. We hope to hit the ground running this year, with the site selection. What that takes is developing that site criteria, so if technology vendors have characteristics in mind of the sites and the markets they're going for, and where that would fit into GSA's portfolio, well, or the private side, that would certainly be taken into play. And through that site selection process, we're going to identify a site that works both for GSA and represents their portfolio well, and then also for the technology vendor, and they feel is an ideal candidate to represent the potential of their technology.
In this insulation phase, and the MNB, those will be significant overlap, as we collect the baseline data, and get the background information that is necessary to be able to properly validate the technology. Site insulation, as I mentioned earlier, will be hand in hand with the vendor. We expect that to be a pretty symbiotic relationship, so that we can stand this up properly and have the equipment work and functioning in the building. That would be a collection we'd like to have some of our initial findings by year one. That 12-month period then would be let me see, March, April of 2024, from those initial findings, and based on the technology type or the solution type, maybe with extending through another heating or cooling season to collect the necessary data toward that final reporting. But a goal would be being able to publish findings and really have results by mid-2024 into 2025, so that we can use these information and GSA is really able to apply the findings from this program in a relatively rapid manner.
I think we're trying to shrink this timeline from what it's been in the past, just understanding some of the opportunities we have now, with funding, and really the ability to rule out technologies more broadly, that we can get proven, and really see them move forward towards wider market penetration. I think that might be the last slide. This one here really highlights on the website, where you can find out more information on the program. You can see here, some of the past selections from Green Proving Ground, all of those are listed on this, it's a small image for me. I've got too many screens open.
On the left side of this goes into past selections of GPG, the pilot to a portfolio program is kind of one that bridges off of this. And if we think about it, this is the pilot study, would then inform where we roll that out to portfolio wide solutions. And I think with that, we can open up to some questions and answers. >> Awesome, thank you Jeff. So we're going to get through as many, as I said, we'll get through as many of these as we can, and the ones that we don't get through, we'll follow up separately.
And I should say, we've gotten a number of questions about the presentation, will the slides be shared? And the recording? And yes, those will be shared after. So, I'm going to jump right in. There are a number of questions on kind of of technology readiness level, in the technology available for market, are you looking for a technology that is in development phase? Kind of what TRL level are you looking for? And Rose, do you want to answer that? >> Sure, I'm happy to answer that. So, the higher level TRLs is what we're looking for. And I don't think there's an exact set, but I would say TRL 7 to 9, and probably more on the 8 to 9 side of things. Yeah, Hayes, or Jessica, if you want to jump in with that? >> I think that's correct, Rose, thank you.
>> Okay great. Are there any opportunities for small businesses? Hayes? >> Sure, I can take this one. I think we are interested.
I'm not sure if the question is about the technology vendor, so of course, you know, we are interested in small business technology vendors responding to this RFI, and then, from the DOE commercial buildings integration side, we are-we do have, we are interested in validating technologies that are applicable for small commercial buildings. So that is within the portfolio of potential validation sites that we're interested in. >> Great, and then GSA side, Jessica, for building side, do you want to mention just that GSA's portfolio tends to be with larger buildings, so GSA technologies- >> Correct, yes, most of our portfolio is large buildings, and to that previous question, GSA, one of our main priorities is supporting small businesses, so we are certainly looking for submissions from small businesses. >> Great, if you know of a DOE lab with MNB expertise in the area that you are bidding, can you partner with them? Or will the third party MNB be assigned? >> So I can take this one.
So we will assign the third party MNB, but I think in your response, if that's-if you've partnered with a specific lab, I think noting that in your narrative would be appreciated, but we will be assigning the third party MNB. For these. >> And, are you coordinating this with the White House and EPA's Clean Air and Buildings Challenge? >> Yes. So we do work with EPA and the White House's challenge quiet closely on indoor air quality and look forward to using any of the results, and MNB findings through, you know, if we do evaluate technologies that improve indoor air quality, look forward to sharing those, and with that broader effort.
We work very closely with them. >> Great. How does one identify potential sites or test beds? >> I can take that. Usually the selected third party MNB, which is often a national lab, will understand the technology in depth, and then come up with certain site selection criteria, and then it's a process to work with GSA or some of our other building partners to really find the appropriate site to demonstrate the technology in. >> Great, and this is a question about the R5 being published. We think maybe it's about the results of the-if selected, and Rose, do you want to-do you want to speak to that as well? >> Yeah, the responses to the RFI are not published, but we do produce a report that will be published to the public in-at the end of the MNB portion, we're always sensitive to the company and whatever information that is proprietary or needs to be masked.
We can work with them to make sure the language is correct in how we portray private information about the company to the public. >> Okay thank you. If a company produces multiple types of these technologies, does a submission need to be made for each one? And Jeff, do you want to answer that? >> Yeah, I would say it could. We certainly have had some issues in the past, that have been covering more than one technology, where there is some overlap, but multiple applications are welcome for various technologies.
>> Okay. There's also a question about kind of fed ramp approval, especially for cloud-based projects. Does the technology solution in order to be tested need to be fed ramp compliant? And Jessica or Jeff, you want to jump in? >> Fed ramp isn't necessary, my understanding, but a pathway towards fed ramp would be very beneficial in the application, you know, validating any technology that is not fed ramp certified is going to have a hard path to more broader implementation for GSA. On the DOE hit side, and the private sector side, no.
So if that's more your market segment, and where you're facing, we still encourage applications in that space. >> Do you need-we need real data. Oh, Jessica, did you want to jump in there or? >> I was just going to say that we do have a team that will need to evaluate. We have a Cyber Security IT team that will need to evaluate the technology in our laboroatory in Washington D.C., but as Jeff said, it does not need to be fed ramp sort of approved during the pilot project, however, that is something that would need to happen if we do have success with the pilot and want to look at more broad-scale deployment.
>> Great, thank you. Do applicants need field data from prior pilot testing in order to be eligible to apply? >> No, I'd say it's helpful in the application if you can report-excuse me-if you can report to past findings and results, it would just speak to the stage of readiness, but field validation reporting or past case study reports are not critical. >> Great. Any commercial site is possible even if it's not operated by GSA, as long as it meets GSA approval. I think this is for the test beds.
>> Yes. Go ahead Jeff. >> So a GSA validation, for GPG would be a GSA site. However, on the private sector side, that would be any facility. So I think those findings from a non-GSA site may still be beneficial to GSA.
However, they're-they're looking for a validation in one of their facilities buildings. >> And then just to clarify there, we can work with the Better Buildings partners to find the non-GSA sites, if folks are interested in validating, in non-GSA sites. >> Great, thank you.
Can you go over more details of the donation and the financing? So, the equipment-the technology donation in particular. >> Yes, so the gifting agreement, or gifting authority that GSA has is really a requirement for this program, and when it makes it functionally possible for GSA and the federal government. For GSA, they're going to expect the hardware or the software, the software solution, it is the core of the technology being gifted to GSA for this validation.
That it could be returned at the end if necessary, but it's typically considered a gift that is the GSA takes possession of. The installation of that equipment would be done, funded by GSA, that could be performed by a third party or potentially their building staff depending on the solution. For non-GSA, the technology would be procured by typically the host site, by the Better Buildings partner, or Department of Defense, and those other examples I mentioned. >> Great. Will technologies that facilitate improved energy efficiency, in other words, like carbon management technologies, would be considered through this RFI? And Hayes, you want to jump in? >> Yes, these are-[inaudible] these technologies are [inaudible].
>> Great. And if we don't have a UL yet, but are in the process of going through a UL certification, can we still go through this RFI? Anyone can jump in here. >> Yes. It can be a barrier for timeline, typically UL certification is required for GSA to install the technology in a building, so if it is a technology that is going to be inside of a GSA building, I specified that, because some are rooftop mounted, mor could be EV infrastructure in a parking lot, and that can be a gray area, but for installation in a GSA building, UL certification is necessary and critical. For the private sector side, it can be a little bit more flexible, but it might still raise the ire of some of the host sites. >> Okay, can-jump to the next one.
Are submissions limited to those listed as examples? In other words, innovated low in body carbon technologies, are you looking for technologies beyond what you listed as examples? Rose, do you want to take that one? >> Sure, yeah, sorry. I think, I think yes, those are just example technologies. If it fits under the major category, then absolutely, absolutely yeah, as long as it's more innovative and in that early commercial stage, a novel approach, or a novel technology or solution. >> Great. Is GSA accepting software-only technologies? >> No. >> No.
>> No, absolutely not. >> Okay great. Is there a preference between GSA and private sites? >> For these [inaudible], so a submission may be selected for one or the other, but in the past, they've also been both.
So it could be a yes and, [laughs] that ultimately we may-we may take the guidance from the technology provider, the market they're facing towards, but there may also be a determination from GSA, or from us on DOE side, as to where we see market potential based on what initiatives we have or are moving forward. >> And are there any opportunities for new construction? For technologies that only apply to new construction? >> Not as much so. That's-definitely challenging for GSA given the large portfolio they have, the number of new builds per year being fairly small. It's really retrofit technologies, those that could be-if it could have a dual potential, both in the retrofit and new construction case, then that could be a yes, but new construction only would be less viable in this RFI.
>> Okay. Does the company need to be based in the United States? Jessica, do you want to- >> No, they do not. >> Great, thanks. Um, let's see. Let's-I'm going to make sure...we can come back to that. Can an integrated-interested applicant partner with a municipal government to deploy eligible technologies on municipal buildings as part of this solicitation? >> Yes, and I think that those potential partners that you have established, that could be effective test beds, are certainly welcomed and appreciated.
>> I think that falls under that innovative financing or business model pathways that you can bring to the table. So I think that strengthens the application, when you can show that deployment pathway of the technology. >> Great. Are there any residential buildings, either in the portfolios of GSA, DOE, or other-the other partners for this testing? >> So most of the ones, the residential buildings that come to mind from the [inaudible] portfolio are more in the multi-family space, so that's really, could be a focus of some of the Better Buildings partners, but primarily it focuses on commercial buildings for our partners.
>> Great. Are you open to building envelope creative ideas that need some development in labs from students, not businesses? So it sounds like earlier in development? >> We're really looking for that early commercial, ready to deploy phase of technology, and so I'd say if it's still in the lab, doing lots of testing, that's-come back to us in, when you're ready for actual deployment. >> Great. One quick additive there, that DOE, the Building Technologies Office, Emerging Technologies Team, is certainly open to earlier stage so you can get hold of the ET office, either through Hayes or myself. >> Does GSA provide a list of participating buildings and their material make-up, building management systems, and other major building assets? >> We don't provide that information on a broad, public type level, but that is something that we utilize, in terms of consideration, in site selection, and the tech vendors will certainly be part of that consensus process.
>> Great. Is there a limit to installation costs, and how are those reimbursed? >> Jeff, if you want to, or Jessica jump in, that the installation is paid for on the GSA side. >> I don't think a limit. It would probably be something that GSA would have to factor into their calculations, conducting the validation, but that could be reimbursed to the provider if it must be installed by the vendor, or that's the best path forward, or it would be a third party installer.
>> That's right, and GSA covers the cost of installation. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Thanks. >> And then on the commercial side, the commercial side, that would be part of the agreement between the vendor and the commercial test bed. >> Great. Do we have a sense, do you have a sense
of how many projects will be selected, even a range? And I'm not sure we have that answer now, we might need to get back to you. I think we'll get back to you on that. We know a number of people have asked that question. I think we have an answer, we'll get back to you.
It's something that is dependent on a lot of factors, so it's not something-we may not be able to answer that at this point. >> Are you looking for insulation solutions such as spray foam, using global warming potential blowing agents? >> I don't see why we wouldn't be? What else? >> Yeah, I think that could definitely work with this RFI. >> Okay. >> Yes, we're certainly trying to strengthen our envelopes, and our federal buildings.
>> Great, are you rewarding improvements to embodied carbon versus operational savings? Is there any tracking of embodied carbon on this RFI? >> Yeah, it's-that's definitely a major topic of consideration when we developed the MNB, so, I would say you know, operational carbon is more at the forefront here, but the embodied carbon is also important to these field demonstration projects. >> Mm-hm. Let's see. There was another question about accepting software only solutions for GSA, and we have accepted software solutions in the past, so I think that's we'll have to get back to you. I think that is a possibility that we can accept software only solutions.
Jessica and Jeff, do you want to weigh in on that? Because I think previously we'd suggested that maybe we wouldn't accept those. But can we maybe clarify that? >> I believe we can accept them. Jeff? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I think they meet the criteria.
>> It's-also, okay so software solutions are accepted, and as far as cloud-based software, we can do a provisional testing agreement, so they can be tested without fed ramp compliance, because that's also coming up a number of times for all of you, have software solutions. >> I'm going to go back to some other questions. Do we have example of if a manufacture permanent shade structures-would this be something that is also eligible for this RFI? >> I think if it's a novel external shade structure, being introduced to help mitigate heat gains, from the sun, like absolutely-sure. >> Okay. Great. One commercial building area that has been neglected is small building-commercial buildings. So although the opportunity is more in large buildings, is there an opportunity here for small buildings? >> Yes, some of the Better Buildings partners and through our CVI team, we are interested in solutions for small buildings.
>> Okay...is full [inaudible] assessment used to quantify the benefits of new technologies, or is the technology only assessed based on direct energy savings? Efficiency savings? >> I think that's going to be a little bit dependent on the technology that is selected, but usually, you know, if it's just energy efficiency, we'll be looking at that. If there is some sort of demand flexibility, we'll look more at the impact to a building's peak demand, and the time dependence of that. Carbon reduction is also considered in the MNB, and we do have the capability-I wouldn't say a full life cycle analysis, but we could think about the factors that weigh into the life cycle analysis of the technologies. >> Great. Here's a question on submission.
So, for someone submitting, and I think my understanding is you submit to the program and whether it's a GSA or a non-GSA. And but if it's a non-GSA submittal, who would be responsible for submitting the paperwork? For example, the vendor with the equipment? Or the school that the equipment is being installed in? Can either submit? An application? >> Yes, I think either can submit an application. If you do know of a site for your vendor, if you have a site that's helpful to include in your application, and we do, I think one other part of this that has come up was asking if...
If there's a site that you already have potentially already installed, I think we need to look at the broader MNB and how to design that MNB plan if the technology is already installed. >> Okay. Just specific question, we're developing two systems for measuring and verifying air leakage and thermal transmittance to baseline building envelope component efficiency in existing buildings, and verifying the efficacy of the upgrades. Is this a technology that would be eligible? >> I think it would be eligible. I think that's, you know, it's not just making the improvements, but assessing them as well, so Jeff, if you want to weigh in on that, or Jessica, Hayes? >> Yes, seems relevant and valuable. I think that we would be conducting verification on top of that system.
But yes, it seems like it, from reading. >> Okay. How about, I would be interested in maintenance technology for commercial refrigeration units to get a 20% plug load energy savings? And Rose? Do you want to? >> Uh, I mean, again, we're looking for something that is novel and innovative, so if it's innovative maintenance system for realizing savings, yes, I think that does apply. >> Okay. A question micro hydroelectric power systems for buildings,
would that, would those be eligible? >> I think it does apply, it needs to be related to the site, though, so it can't be separate from the site. So you know, I think we'll give preference to where we can see these types of renewable systems that can integrate into the building loads. Themselves. >> There was a question about how we private party MNB and subject matter expert firms apply to this RFI? >> So the MNB will be provided by the national labs, through DOE. >> Great. This is a question about if you are interested in both government
and commercial buildings, do you need to submit two proposals, or can the same proposal be considered for both GSA and DOE? >> Yeah, each and all proposals will be considered on both sides. >> Great. Okay. Is having a partner site versus not considered an advantage in the selection process? >> I wouldn't say an advantage, but it does-it is beneficial, it's nice to have, but it's certainly by no means-goes into our scoring or selections. >> Okay. And can the same product be submitted for different buildings,
like a school in California, or a hospital in Illinois? >> Yes, and I would say including those options in one application is fine. We're going to consider the technology and we'll be considering it across multiple sectors internally and among the subject matter experts at the national labs. >> Great. Would low temperature waste heat to electricity be relevant? >> To the extent it can be done on site, I think yes, as Rose mentioned, it's really going to be-technologies are incorporated into buildings, so if it can be used and utilized in the building and the system, then I'd say yes, if you're getting outside the building or you're looking at district systems, it becomes more complicated for retrofits.
>> Okay. For the MNB, how does GSA determine the length of MNB, and if a technology demonstrates an ROI in a short period, will GSA/DOE potentially shorten the MNB time frame? >> Yeah-absolutely [overlapping speakers]- >> Oh, go ahead, Rose. >> Yeah, it depends on the technology. I think, you know, if it's a complicated technology that needs a long baseline period, and then a long period for implementation to really calculate the savings, that's going to be a much longer time frame. But if it's a technology that you can more quickly compare the impact to the baseline, then of course, that will be shortened. >> Yeah, typically it seems like we do six months to one year of MNB evaluation.
>> Can we meet with someone to clarify our eligibility before applying, if so, who can we meet with? >> You can send an email to this GPG at GSA.gov email account, and we may be able to follow up there. And any answers need to be shared more broadly, but if it's just, if you want to assess your technology in an email, we could do it via that.
>> Can you expand on the bring your own site option? >> Yeah, I think mainly that would streamline the validation process, which, which is advantageous overall. It's by no means a requirement, and not suggesting that you talk to your local GSA energy manager, and get them excited about it. So not critical, but it's a value add, I think, you know even a technology vendor has assessed the market and they have a clear path in mind for their strategy or how they fit into the broader commercial building market. That's a value add. >> Great. For how-I would just quickly add, that I think what we're really looking for is site characteristics.
>> Right. >> So that's a type of information that we need from a technology vendor, and we do ensure that we allow plenty of time to like I said gain consensus on a good site, and again, GSA has nationwide portfolio, and a lot of folks that are interested in pushing and utilizing technology to advance the performance of our buildings. >> Great, thanks, Jessica. For emerging technology, TR level 3, should we submit an RFI response, or reach out separately to Jeff and Hayes? >> I'd say reaching out separately is fine.
>> Rose- >> You may [inaudible] that but we can, you can reach out to one of us, that would be great. >> Yeah, that's a pretty low TRL, so you know, we're really looking for the higher level TRLs. >> Well DOE/GSA help negotiate participation from RTO ISO and demonstrating energy efficiencies and cost savings, and I'm not sure I understand the RTO/ISO acronym, so- >> Yeah, on the utility side, the regional transmission operators, if I got that acronym correct, etc., you know, I think if it makes sense to engage with those types of stakeholders, then yes, we will, I think it's often great to involve utilities into those-into the conversations of these failed demonstration projects. But yeah, not explicitly.
I think it's going to depend on the technology and the discussions with the vendor. >> Great. Can the business model financing innovation count as the main innovation, or does there need to be a hardware, or a hardware technology component? >> I'm sorry, could you read that one again? >> Yes, so can the business model, financing innovation count as the main innovation or does there need to be a hardware component? >> I mean, we're really looking for technologies and solutions, so there should be a hardware or software solution associated with the submission.
>> Great, thank you. >> Yep. >> Well, I think with that, we've gone through a lot of questions.
Thank you for so many great questions, and we will follow up with both an email, our general email, which is gsa.gov, GPG@gsa.gov, so you can send any follow up questions there that if you didn't get, that weren't answered, and we'll be sharing the slides and a recording of the presentation as well. So thank you all for joining us today and we look forward to you submitting to the RFI. Thank you.
2024-06-27