>> Hello, everyone. Welcome, and thank you for joining us today for this year's informational webinar on the RFI for Emerging Technologies for Net Zero Carbon Buildings. I'm Andrea Sylvester with GSA's Center for Emerging Building Technologies.
And before we get started, I'm going to review just a few webinar logistics. You all are in listen mode, and you can use the Q&A button at the bottom of the Zoom window. The Q&A will happen after our presentations, but you don't need to wait to ask questions. In fact, we encourage you to ask them well in advance. A list of frequently asked questions is available on gsa.gov.
And we'll also be updating it after today's webinar. And right now, we'll drop a link to these FAQs into the Zoom chat window. Today's webinar is being recorded, and will be shared with our mailing list along with the slides and posted to the GSA website, and the recording will also be posted to the GSA YouTube channel. Over the next hour, we'll give you a brief overview of the DOE and GSA test bed programs you'll be submitting your information to, the types of technologies we're looking for, and the mechanics of submitting information to and participating in our program.
And we'll, again, we'll leave plenty of time for Q&A. And if we don't get through all of your questions, we'll follow up by e mail. A quick introduction to today's speakers. You'll be hearing from Kevin Powell, the Director of GSA's Center for Emerging Building Technologies. Kassie Grimes from the Department of Energy will walk us through the three Department of Energy programs that are supporting this request for information.
And Cedar Blazek from GSA will discuss the RFI topics and mechanics in more detail. And, again, we'll close by answering your questions. And now I'd like to turn it over to Kevin.
Thank you, again, for joining us. >> Well, thank you, Andrea. And thanks to all of you out there for having joined us here this morning. I want to just start by saying how incredibly excited we are for this year's program. I mean, for every year's program, of course.
Just to give you an overview, start with actually an overview of what the Greed Proving Ground program is all about. This is our 13th program here, our 9th doing this jointly with Department of Energy. I'll give you some sense of our 2024 topic areas, why we have selected them, and then some details about GSA and essentially what this opportunity is really about. So, next slide.
Our administrator likes to say that this is truly a once in a generation money meets the moment moment. As many of you know, the current administration has set bold goals to achieve net zero emissions economy wide by 2050. And for GSA, portfolio wide by 2045. And they've also set out targets for an all zero emissions vehicle fleet by 2035, and 100% EV machines by 2027.
So, I think you can sort of see this is a moment of extraordinary velocity. We don't anticipate, and I think that might be something you might be wondering, is there going to be, or is this really dependent on the form of election? Truthfully, I think this overarching arc is something that we are, it's a journey we are on, and it's not going to change. One other thing to note is that a lot of our program currently is funded from the Inflation Reduction Act. That's what really allowed us to greatly scale up the Green Proving Ground program, and that money continues through 2026. So, obviously this is, I think it's a huge opportunity for all of us.
So, there's going to be more detail shared in a little bit on all six of these topic areas. But the overarching intent is to help us get to this place, 2045, all net zero portfolio, net zero operations, and lower embodied carbon materials used in the upgrades that we're looking to achieve. So, that's where we're headed. That's what we're hoping to find from you all in your submissions. Again, what we're looking for is those innovative, emerging technologies that are going to get us to where we need to go on this journey to net zero.
Next slide. Just a few notes about who GSA is. And I think some of you may know, we are probably best described as the landlord for the civilian federal government. And even if you know that, I've got to say, I am somebody who knows that, and I have known it for 20 years, and it still sort of amazes me when I look at a slide like this, to see just how many properties are under our jurisdiction and control. And, you know, again, it's a scale that there really are, the next, the next largest owner of real estate, or, you know, yeah, corporate real estate, is Walmart, which is, of course, all big box retail. We are, by far and away, the largest single portfolio of office space.
And office space is a really dominant building type within commercial real estate. It's just that most of it is owned by relatively small owners. So, our scale and our program really allows us to really lead that industry.
A couple of other things just to note as you're thinking about your technologies, because we're thinking about your technologies in ways that we don't want to just validate that they work in one place, we're looking to say what makes sense to deploy portfolio wide. So, when we talk about our portfolio, our portfolio is, generally speaking, large buildings. And generally speaking, we are in mild climates.
Generally speaking, our portfolio is older. We have about a third of the buildings that we own are historic structures. Another thing to note is we've made a lot of investments to essentially transform our facilities. It's an ongoing effort to what would be called smart buildings. These are buildings with very advanced building automation systems. So, again, that's sort of, that's the baseline that you're walking into.
And then the question is, how do we leverage all of that past investment for this particular building type to get ourselves to this goal of net zero operations portfolio wide by 2045? Next slide. So, a little bit about that money meets the moment moment that our administrator is talking about all the time, and that is this really significant three, more than three billion dollar investment that came from the Inflation Reduction Act. And I want to draw your attention, in particular, to that third box on the right, 975 million dollars for emerging and sustainable technologies. Those are essentially the technologies that we have been proving out through this program. So, it's an incredible jump start, first of all, to that journey to net zero.
And secondly, it's an incredible validation to all of the technologies that you all are sort of developing, we are validating through this program, and then this allows us to invest in those technologies. This is probably the very last moment where we'll have a chance to really impact some of this investment with what we select. Next slide. There is a second plot of money that I also want to just be clear that we have. This is all around land ports of entry. Right? This comes from the bipartisan infrastructure law.
Land ports of entry are what you might call border stations. These are essentially the border crossings on the southern and northern border. These are substantial what we would call modernizations or new constructions.
So, this is even more money, 3.75 billion, as you can see here, all of these major modernizations or new construction are using the same kinds of advanced technologies that we're, again, proving out through this program, are having a fairly significant impact on that, based on what we validated previously. But also there's a, you know, I think, again, it's a good moment to say that actually this exact moment that is to say this all, the cohort that we'll be selecting this year, could have some impact on this program as well. Next slide. This is a sort of, I look at this as a show me the money slide, like this is what folks look at, our program, it's one of the reasons why I'm confident that no matter what administration is elected in the fall, we, this program has continued through all the, again, it's been going on for, at this point, almost a dozen years, it's been through several administrations. And it remains a source of investment.
And that's because of what we deliver in terms of savings. I think it's pretty clear that doing business as yesterday is just not efficient and doesn't take advantage of the opportunities that have really emerged over the past decade, really around all the connected technologies that are out there. What we've seen bottom line is that we're delivering 28 million dollars savings per year. And that's even more significant when you consider that that is probably about 10% of what the opportunity, total opportunity is. That is to say it is about 300 million dollar spend that this is representing 10% of in terms of energy. We have had I would say a fair amount of success in deploying technologies that have been through the program, so more than half of those where we have published a result are technologies that have seen uptake in other GSA facilities in some cases quite broadly and extensively.
The whole point of our program is to derisk innovation. Nobody, I guess the old saying is nobody ever got fired for specifying IBM, for those of you who go back that far, but basically the point is the tried and true is always the default. And, you know, innovation seems risky. The point of Green Proving Ground, the reason you're applying to this program, and hopefully you'll be selected, is to derisk that innovation, so that there's some uncertainty, it seems like it should work better, but does it really in the real world.
When people see that it does, that's how you get further investment. That's certainly how a program is organized. And then the last slide for me here. Next slide. Good. Just to sort of reinforce why you'll be participating, what you would be getting out of that, there's just a lot of value to a truly objective third party validation by a Department of Energy national lab.
We've actually tried a host of ways of doing this. That is the way that we've solidified on as absolutely the bulletproof best way. National labs are just uniquely expert doing real world validations. And they are complicated, and they are really the renowned world experts in doing that.
Our portfolio has, because there are those 1,700 buildings, there's a lot of essential facilities to choose from, so we can pick the best set of locations to really validate technology in a way that is not a case study where, oh, it worked here under this particular set of circumstances, this one time, but really in a way that allows us to extrapolate across all of those buildings, right? So, what we're trying to do is to go from a few to the many. The second thing that folks have told us who participated in this program, we've heard this almost from every single one of them, is that these validations, they're important for GSA, but they're actually even more important for the broader commercial real estate industry, because you, again, it's not derisking. And it derisks for us, but it derisks for other private sector investors. And truthfully I think for some companies, this has also been, you know, for earlier stage ones, I would say, these kinds of studies are really valuable in basically further capitalizing the company from raising additional [inaudible].
And with that, I'm going to turn this over to Kassie. And let's talk about Department of Energy. >> Thanks so much, Kevin. Hi, everyone.
So, I'm here to give a brief introduction to the three Department of Energy offices that are partnering with GSA for this RFI. And I'll provide an overview of each of their areas of interest. Next slide. So, we'll start with the Building Technologies Office, or BTO.
BTO develops, demonstrates, and accelerates the adoption of cost effective technologies that enable high performing and energy efficient buildings. BTO's commercial buildings integration program specifically focuses on validating technologies in the field through partnerships with commercial buildings. They work closely with better buildings partners, which is made up of companies representing 13% of all commercial building space in the U.S. to conduct, to connect the national labs and technology providers, such as yourselves, with recruited host sites to provide technical assistance and third party measurement and verification. Next slide.
The Federal Energy Management Program, or FEMP, works to enable federal agencies to meet their energy related goals, particularly through facilitation of public private partnerships. And their role as a technology validator, FEMP connects potential validation sites with solution providers. These sites extend beyond the GSA portfolio, offering a wider range of potential sites for measurement and verification of technology solutions. Among the federal fleet, there were over 2,500 zero emission vehicle acquisitions in fiscal year '22. And with the expectation of increased growth in this area, there continues to be a need for EV charging stations and building integrated technologies. Next slide.
Finally, the Solar Energy Technologies Office, or SETO, accelerates the advancement and deployment of solar technology. In particular, SETO supports domestic manufacturing and competitiveness research to develop pathways to commercialization for high impact innovation in the solar industry. The goal is to move technologies to market by strengthening promising concepts and increasing their readiness for greater private sector investment and scale up to commercialization.
For example, SETO accelerates domestic, photovoltaic research and development, solar thermal power systems integration, strategic analysis, workforce and manufacturing, and competitiveness. In support of manufacturing and competitiveness, SETO is tasked with derisking technologies, moving into the marketplace, with the goals of reducing risks of performance, yield, scaling, quality, and business to enable industrial readiness. SETO also improves affordability, performance, and value of solar technologies. And they have over, or approximately 400 active projects with partners in more than 40 states NDC. Twenty five percent of those are with businesses and nonprofits, 40% of those are with national labs, and 25% are with universities.
Next slide. So, now I will hand things over to Cedar to take it from here. >> Thank you very much, Kassie and Kevin. I'm really going to be digging into some more of the specifics around the RFI. And we'll start with what are we looking for.
So, we are really here to gain information about technologies that have a significant potential to decarbonize U.S. commercial buildings. This is your reminder that we're looking for early or underutilized commercial technologies that are ready for evaluation and occupied operational buildings. Prototypes, or commercial technologies that are broadly in use and readily available, are not appropriate candidates for this RFI. We are primarily focused on technologies that support retrofits and the existing commercial buildings doc, but we are open to technologies that may support new construction. Next slide. For validation, technology must have all safety certifications, such as UL certification, and an established timeline for establishing compliance with the BAA and the TAA, which I will talk about in later slides.
While not necessary for GSA validations, compliance with those is required for procurement in the federal market. Any other sector or technology specific certification, such as the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool, or EPEAT, for solar photovoltaics, and you all listing for any necessary electrical systems, is an expected, is expected, or applicants should have steps toward achieving them in the near future, and you should notify this timeline in your RFI submission. Next slide. Now I'm going to present more on our specific technology areas. First up, deep energy retrofits. So, we are looking for solutions that improve the energy efficiency and reduce the carbon footprint of an existing building.
This includes technologies and strategies to capture and manage waste heat, refrigerant leak prevention, or low to no global warming potential refrigerants. We are interested in envelope retrofits to help manage solar heat gain, minimize air leakage, or reduce heating and cooling loads. This might include pass of building technologies and other solutions that use thermal mass and demand shifting. And we're interested in lighting and lighting control systems. Finally, there are technologies that can help us enable easier retro and continuous commissioning, as well as software and hardware that can help support load flexibility and grid interactive efficient buildings.
Next slide. Our next technology focus area will help us eliminate the use of fossil fuels and view building and vehicle fleet operations. So, this is titled all electric buildings and vehicle fleets.
We are looking for heat product systems, particularly larger scale, to help meet our large commercial building needs, systems approaches to help us decarbonize commercial boilers that may be running on fossil fuels, or other packaged heat pump systems. Additionally, to help support the transition to all electric buildings, smart panels and circuits, and other types that minimize the need for electrical service upgrades. And then finally for vehicle fleets, as we transition to meet those goals that Kevin mentioned, anything that helps serve our fleet needs as electric vehicle supply equipment. Next slide. Our next technology focus area, healthy and resilient buildings, is helping us enhance occupant comfort and building health, so we are looking for technologies or systems that improve environmental quality monitoring and control within our facilities.
We are seeking novel methods to reduce the risk of disease transmission in any state. We are hoping to find the solutions that help enhance the resiliency and passive survivability of our facilities. Additionally, microgrids are an area of interest, as well as water conservation and water harvesting technologies that can help save water and support continued facility operation if the water supply is disrupted. Low embodied carbon building materials help us reduce lifecycle emissions associated with the materials used for facility construction, renovation, and reuse.
So, for this topic area that is new this year, we are looking for low or no emissions materials or products, solutions that help reduce the overall lifecycle carbon emissions of a facility. So, in addition to those that help sort of upfront with the lifecycle carbon, solutions or strategies that involve the innovative deconstruction and reuse of technologies, products, or incorporate best practices to reduce lifecycle emissions. Next slide.
Overall, we are also interested in net zero operations. We would love for our facilities to be able to operate without fossil fuel equipment and combine on site renewables with off site carbon pollution free electricity. So, this includes things like on site carbon free energy generation, such as building integrated photovoltaics, high efficiency Solar System designs, geothermal, or grounded building mountain wind turbines. It might include on site energy storage. And that includes battery, thermal, or green hydrogen. This might include on site carbon capture technologies for fuel fired processes, technologies that integrate on site energy generation and storage with building management systems, and any approach that would simplify or reduce the installation, operation, and maintenance challenges associated with the workload to enable net zero facilities.
Finally, our last area of interest combines all of these, and we're seeking packages of emerging and sustainable technology solutions. So, these are technologies are stacks or packages that create deeper energy or emissions reductions for a facility or for a campus. Specifically, technologies or packages that support zero carbon emissions and backup generation for data centers or critical facilities is of high interest to our team. We're looking at long duration energy storage, data selection, and management of operational and embodied emissions, and power optimization measures that might help reduce peak power in buildings. Finally, if possible, novel financing approaches, and/or business models to accelerate the uptake of low carbon technologies, are encourages, and may be integrated into responses into this RFI to help streamline and accelerate the deployment of your technology or solution. Now, I'm going to walk through guidance for the RFI submissions, our internal review process, participation expectations from responding technology providers, as well as timelines, for GSA and the broader commercial building sector, it's important that we quantify the applicability and effectiveness of the technology through validations in this program.
The criteria and the expectations will be specific to the technology selected, but will likely fit into one or more of these categories. Validations will include the measurement and verification of reduced emissions, primary energy savings or demand reductions, on site energy generation, load management, and improved operational performance, and cost effectiveness. Demonstrations of novel financing approaches could provide additional value to our program. To briefly describe our categorical criteria for technology reviews, we will look at the notable differentiators from options already proven and widely available on the market to your technology or solution.
We will evaluate the performance characteristics, and the benefits or improvements that your technology provides. We will look at quantification of the savings potential in terms of carbon reduction, energy savings, and return on investment, or any other metrics based on the technology category that you select. We will look at the deployment point of impact or potential, including the market and opportunity for this technology, which will consider commercial buildings for both the public and private sectors. And how ready is the technology for the wider market in an appropriate timeline? Our internal downselect process includes technical analysis by subject matter experts at the national laboratories, reviews and rankings by the Department of Energy, General Services Administration, and independent industry experts.
And finally a determination of finalists will be made for validation by the Green Proving Ground program leadership. So, what is going to be expected of you to participate in this program? For validations in GSA buildings, the core technology equipment for the evaluation must be gifted to GSA, or provided via an alternative financing mechanism. GSA will cover the cost of installation, according to the technology providers guidance.
In the DOE validation, technologies are typically purchased by the validation site, and those negotiations occur between the vendor and the host site directly. DOE does not participate in those negotiations. These sites will be non GSA facilities, and could be either a private or a public sector partner.
We are open to existing relationships if the technology provider has an ideal candidate or a specific sector that is well suited to the technology. Through all steps of the validation, site selection, installation, MNV, and reporting, we want the technology provider to be included in this process. This includes supporting the lab lead researcher and advising on the criteria they develop, providing guidance on all aspects of the installation and measurement and verification process, and providing availability for on site and audio/video meetings to facilitate the validation. Next slide. So, I mentioned this a little bit earlier, but for technologies looking to sell to the federal market, having a target pathway for compliance with the Buy American Act, or BAA, and the Trade Agreements Act, or TAA, that compliance is really important. So, while foreign companies are able to participate in this RFI, you will need BAA and TAA compliance for broader federal deployment.
All right, I talked a little bit about the program contribution expectations, but this gets into more details around our roles and responsibilities throughout the life of a project. So, if selected for validation, these are the program roles and responsibilities. For both GSA and DOE, there's a number of stakeholders involved throughout the life of a Green Proving Ground project. A federal project manager will oversee the project and approve milestones. Host sites are expected to provide leadership on facility background and baseline energy and emissions.
The lab researcher at our national labs, and particularly the principal investigator, will serve as the project lead for developing criteria, and advising from site selection through final validation, and ultimately will be producing the final report or case study. You all, on this webinar, the technology provider, is expected to support on all matters through the validation, from providing the technology, supporting design, installation and commissioning, providing necessary certifications, and participating, if necessary, in the federal IT security clearance. Security clearance for federal projects is a multistep process. All hardware and software will need to be scanned. Technologies that connect to the building will need additional scanning.
And if there's a cloud based component, it will need a temporary [inaudible] clearance, which we will talk more in depth about, if ultimately selected for this program. For broader deployment in federal buildings, that type of technology will need FedRAMP approval. So, that's just a note that there is an expectation around this IT security clearance, and there are different processes for the evaluation, and then for broader deployment.
We did want to briefly highlight the markets that are potential validation sites for this RFI. Both Kevin and Kassie spoke to these at a high level. The Department of Energy can reach any type of commercial building.
Historically, in the private sector, these have frequently been better buildings participants. But a broadened focus to include more small commercial and underserved markets, BTO is intent on increasing the reach of all of these initiatives. GSA's portfolio of buildings is distributed throughout the U.S. Ninety percent, as Kevin mentioned, are those very large office buildings, situated in mild climates.
So, we are open to a variety of building and building types. And we hope that in your application, you will note that the type of buildings that your technology solution is applicable for, and, if possible, where you think an excellent building type or location may be for the evaluation of your solution. Next slide.
This is a critical look at the key dates in our request for information review process, as well as our final selections. So, as you all are aware, the RFI opened on August 1st. Today, we are hosting RFI informational webinar on August 22nd. The deadline for applications is September 13th, and that will not be extended, so please make sure that you have your applications in by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on September 13th, 2024. We will information folks who have been selected as semi finalists in December of 2024, and we'll ask semi finalists to prepare a brief presentation during February of 2025. After that presentation and those meetings, we will select our finalists and notify those that have been selected in March or April of 2025.
For semi finalists, you will submit responses to reviewer questions and feedback between that December and February time frame. A video presentation of your technology will also be requested. And a live video conference will be scheduled to provide direct feedback and responses to the GSA and DOE team. And that is for all semi finalists. Next slide.
For those that do get selected as the finalists and are asked to participate in one of our programs, this is a rough timeline of the assessment process. There are four phases to our assessments, the first being site selection. The next, installation. The third phase is the measurement and verification phase.
And then the final phase of reporting and project close out. Typically, site selection can take up to four months. Sometimes longer. Installation takes approximately six months.
We estimate measurement and verification will take six months to a year, depending on the technology and the climate. And finally, reporting will take an additional six months. So, this, from selection to project close out, can be anywhere from 18 to 40 to 36 months, depending on the type of technology and the identified needs. Okay, we've made it through the technical details of the webinar.
Now you all are wondering how you apply. The RFI and submission details are currently available on sam.gov. That's S A M dot G O V. And it's also available via GSA's Center for Emerging Building Technologies website. Those linkings are in the chat for you today. Responses will be accepted through Friday, September 13th at 11:59 p.m. Eastern.
And to be considered, responses must be received prior to this closing time. If you have any questions, we're available to assist via e mail, and/or hold a phone conference, if necessary. If you would like to reach out to us, the GPG e mail contact is gpg@gsa.gov. I'll say that again, gpg@gsa.gov. That's how you'll be able to reach us, and we will be available to answer your questions.
I will note, as the team mentioned earlier, we have a Q&A form that will be updated, our frequently asked questions form, that will be updated with the Q&A from today's webinar, that is available on our Center for Emerging Building Technologies website. You can find out more information at gsa.gov/gpgrfi. And with that, I'm going to send things back to Andrea to facilitate our Q&A.
>> Great. Thank you, Cedar, and Kevin and Kassie. We have a lot of questions. As Cedar mentioned, we'll be getting through as many of these as we can.
And if we don't answer your question, please e mail us. So, with that, I'm going to jump right in. So, I think, Kevin, this question is for you. Can applicants specify what type of building you would want to test in? Climate, size, state, location, et cetera? >> Yes is the short answer to that.
We would encourage you to identify where your technology would best fit, what would be best deploy, and what type of facility, the more you can tell us about how to best evaluate your technology as part of your submission, the better your submission will be. >> Great. Do the historic buildings also include modern smart building BAS systems? >> That's a great question.
And the answer to that is incredibly enough yes, some of them. There's a lot of small, I would say the historic buildings are diverse. And some of them are really quite [inaudible] let's just say. They're very traditional. But some of them have been fully upgraded. >> Great. Does the program ever pick projects that use ostensibly different technologies
or building components to see how they work together? >> Another great question. And I probably was remissive in not highlighting this earlier. We actually have two programs that you're applying to; the Green Proving Ground program, which is what we, generally speaking, talk about. Some projects go to what we're calling our applied innovation learning labs. And the applied innovation learning labs focus exactly on that question. That is to say if you stack technologies together, is the sum of the whole greater than the sum of the parts? And so, again, that's where you would then move to that program.
Actually, electric vehicle supply equipment, all of the stuff around charging, bidirectional charging, things that, again, involve multiple systems working together, we put those into the applied innovation learning lab. >> Great. Thank you. What opportunities or restrictions, if any, exist if we participate and then want to share our results publicly with our own sales and marketing case studies? >> Right. So, I'm going to take this for GSA, because there's probably a slightly different answer for DOE. So, for GSA, what we are, what we want to do is to do what we're calling a technology evaluation. So, it's generic in its name.
And then we state as a matter of fact that you [inaudible] basically contributed that technology for evaluation. The reason we do that is that ultimately what we want to do is to be able to buy your technology out there in the marketplace. The federal government cannot endorse any vendor, and cannot specify a specific vendor. So, we're specifying [inaudible] characteristics. And we really try to be mindful of how to ensure that we get to that best possible outcome, given the rules and requirements of federal procurement.
>> Great. Is GSA and DOE considering software aimed at decarbonization or just hardware? >> Software, absolutely. In fact, I'd say in recent years, probably, well, many things are software enabled that we've had even some I'd say probably about 10% have been purely software as a solution solutions.
>> Are applicants required to have all certifications listed, or is it acceptable to be in a process with any of those, like you will certification? >> Right. Yeah, that's, again, a somewhat complicated answer. But we have, so, bottom line is you're installing in an operating building. So, you have to be, you have to be fire life safety acceptable. We have done one off UL certifications, which can be done. And we certainly have selected technologies that are on their, they're in the process of getting their UL certification.
>> For proven technologies that are not widely adopted, are you interested in supporting the manufacturing scale up to drive down costs and enable broader adoption? >> I think I'm going to give that to DOE. >> Sure. And for that one, I would say, I think it depends on what's being tested. I think the purpose of this RFI is really to demonstrate market ready technology. So, if it fits within that bill, I think we're not necessarily looking for technologies that have already been demonstrated, and have already been proven to really be effective, because this isn't really meant for scale up through this work, necessarily.
This is more focused on demonstrating those technologies that are pretty close. >> Thank you, Kassie. Cedar, I think this question is for you. Can an application have, for a single technology, be considered for multiple categories, say deep energy retrofit and packages of the emerging technology? >> Yeah. We'll ask each applicant to select the most applicable category, so that we can identify the category that is most applicable.
But you can note if it does fall into multiple categories. So, just select the one that is most applicable to you and note in your application if it can be applied to others. >> Great. And also for you, do applicants, can applicants receive any sort of feedback, should their proposal application not be accepted? >> If the proposal or application is not accepted, applicants are welcome to reach out to our team and request specific feedback.
And if we are able to, we will be able to provide feedback to those who requested. >> And I think Kevin, for you, does the technology have to meet all the listed success criteria, or does the criteria adjust to which problem that technology aims to solve? Could be either for Cedar or Kevin. >> I guess I'll take that and say that, yeah, it adjusts.
We develop M&D plans that are specific to the technology and recognize that not every, again, there is one size misfits all, so we try to come up with the right land. Again, the target is just to understand, is this going to be effective if broadly deployed? >> Can the [inaudible] between this opportunity and other state sponsored programs? For example, you state provided funding towards the equipment manufacturing, given that it will not be covered by GSA. >> I wouldn't see any reason why not. >> Great. Can you provide, elaborate a little bit more on the gifting of the technology
in relation to companies that operate via licensing rather than selling? >> I guess that one's again for me. >> Yes. >> So, the short answer is, yes, we can make that work. And probably we don't need to go in the details of how.
>> Okay, thanks. Cedar, just to confirm, did we hear that during the evaluation phase, no direct funding is provided to the technology vendors? >> That is correct. >> Great. Again, Cedar, for you. Should they submit a different application for each program, G I SA and DOE? >> No. You will only submit one application to the RFI, and every technology will be evaluated
for each program, unless you explicitly ask to not be considered for one. >> Great. Is a SAM number needed to submit a response to the RFI? >> No. Because this is not a procurement action, an SAM number is not required to submit a response to this RFI. >> If someone has a technology that's suitable for the program in the future, when does this program, the opportunity come about again? >> We have traditionally published this RFI on an annual basis, so we hope that we will be able to publish another RFI around this time next year.
>> Kevin, this is a question for you. Is there a database of available DOE facilities we can use to identify candidate sites? >> DOE facilities or GSA? >> Either. And Kassie, for you, for DOE. And then for GSA, for GSA, for both, either kind of, is there a way of knowing what kind of candidates are out there? >> Well, I'll say for GSA, the short answer is, well, yes, of course it's all public. But the more complicated answer is typically we match the site to your technology after you have been selected.
So, what we're really going to do, if selected, what we're going to do is we're going to understand exactly what are those success criteria. And then what sort of facility is going to be, or facilities, are going to best help us derisk that technology solution so that we, based on understanding how it really is going to deliver in the real, what is that actual payback? What is the O&M requirement? >> Thank you. We have a couple additional questions on the UL certification. I know you answered it, but is there a date by which someone needs to have their UL certification completed? Do we know a specific date, or a general guideline? >> I'll start with that. And Kassie, you should jump in [inaudible] too.
Sort of generally speaking, what we would be talking about is you're submitting information now, we're looking at selection in late February, we're looking for test beds, stand up by let's just say summer of 2025. So, a good target would be summer of 2025. >> Great. Thank you. I know this has been answered, but we've heard it a couple of times, for our companies that are not U.S. based, are they, can they apply? >> Again, I'll take that one.
And just like Cedar said, yes. Yes, you can. But, you know, I think both from our point of view and your point of view, you'd want to have a pathway to BAA or TAA compliance, because ultimately that's how you're going to be more broadly deployed. >> Great. Thank you.
What kinds of facilities are included aside from commercial buildings, say labs, utility sites, waste, water sites? Are there other types of buildings that you're looking at? >> I think that one should go to Kassie. I mean, like for GSA, let me just say for GSA, it's courthouses, it's office space, it's land ports of entry. Not a lot of anything else.
>> And for DOE, it is a lot of commercial buildings, mostly. But we do have access to national lab testing sites. And potentially some other types of buildings that are within our network. >> Great. Can applicants and national laboratories submit a joint application? >> Well, Cedar, do you have any thoughts on that one, or Kassie? >> There is nothing that bars you all from submitting together. >> And Kassie, this question is for you.
Can you say more about what a typical agreement might look like between a vendor and DOE for the cost of the project? Is there a cost share in the product and installation? >> Yeah, so what I can say about that is that it's, there's, we don't have a lot of involvement in that process, but that's really a negotiation between the site and the vendor. So, they typically handle that. >> Is the program open to technologies that address energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions in small commercial buildings, you know, under 100,000 square feet? >> Yes, absolutely. >> Great. >> Absolutely. >> Great. Are there requirements to have open versus proprietary communication product
or protocols for ease of integration? >> I will speak for GSA. We are very committed to open protocols. >> Great. Thank you. Would you use lifecycle assessments to qualify or classify material selection? If so, what impacts other than GWP be considered? >> Not sure what that really is asking. >> Yes.
>> But generally speaking, everything is, so, again, just like we like open protocols, we are committed to lifecycle cost assessment in all of our decision making. >> Great. Will the government evaluate similar technologies from different vendors? >> A hundred percent. >> Great. Can an organization submit more than one application?
For instance, one application for technology A as a standalone solution, and another application for a technology stack that includes technology A? >> Again, absolutely. >> Can you say more about what happens after the report is published? And if the technology is found to be effective, meaning what kind of procurement path is there for the product? >> Well, let me speak again to GSA, because it's a little different for DOE. For GSA, the simplest way to think about this is you are doing this outside the procurement pathway. We do the validation, we get to a conclusion, we write up essentially salient characteristics, and then we would come back out to the market with a, again, it depends, but essentially if we're doing the procurement, it's an RFP for GSA. We also have tools that are what are called blanket purchase agreements, BPAs, and IDIQs indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity. And then really quite frankly an awful lot of these technologies end up being incorporated as part of an energy savings performance contract, delivered by an ECO, an energy service company.
>> Does DOE or GSA work with utility providers to implement rebate programs incentivizing the use of products or technology that's proven effective? >> I'll say for GSA, no. But Kassie, what about DOE? >> For DOE, I'm not sure. I haven't been part of this long enough to know yet. But I know that we do have some, some programming outside of GPG that does work with utilities. I just don't know that that's necessarily part of this process specifically, but worth exploring.
>> Great, thank you. What happens to the equipment at the end of the test period? >> Well, again, let me speak to GSA only. So, as a gift, it cannot be returned to you. We have other authorities that we have explored where if that was important, we could pursue that. But for the vast majority, at the end of the, at the end of the test, it either remains in place, or it is removed and decommissioned, but not returned.
>> Does the RFI explorer service approach to decarbonization outside of technology? >> It could, yes, a service approach, absolutely, very interesting. >> Great. Okay, let's see. Is there a list of, and we can share this, a list of the approved technologies that GSA has already evaluated? And then owners can start to implement? >> Well, yes.
And Andrea or somebody should put that into the chat or the FAQs. >> We will do that. >> There it is. >> Okay, perfect. A number of people have asked if the presentation is going to be shared. We will be sharing this presentation.
We'll be e mailing it out to everyone who registered. We'll be posted it at gsa.gov. And also posting a copy of the recording. A couple more questions. So, do company founders need to have security clearances in order to participate in evaluation? >> Well, the short answer to that is no.
But the more complicated answer is that to the degree that you would be interacting with GSA systems, potentially confidential, or what we call confidential unclassified information, you would need to get a security clearance, which we sponsor as part of your participation in the program. >> Great. Thank you. When you consider a technology that if you've already implemented a similar technology at a subset of GSA buildings? >> I'd say yes. But you should definitely note that in your, as part of your submission. And what differentiates what you're submitting right now.
>> Are you looking at scope three emissions at all in submit steel technologies, et cetera? >> Yes. >> Great. And is there a matching program or database that could assist companies or universities or other organizations and finding partners for teaming up on the RFI submissions? >> I believe the answer to that is no. Cedar? >> Not at this time. >> And is there a way for people to e mail you all to say they're interested? I don't know if that's a possibility. >> You can always reach out to us at GSA, or gpg@gsa.gov, gsa@gpg, gpg@gsa.gov, excuse me.
>> Great. Thank you. Is air tightness and reducing energy consumption by making existing buildings more airtight part of the program scope? >> One hundred percent. >> Great. Let's see if any new questions have come in. Let's see. I think someone asked about the timeline of the RFI process. Again, it's closing September 13th, and that timeline is in the slides, which we'll be sharing.
Do you need FedRAMP completed prior to selection? Or would we complete FedRAMP with GSA as a partner doing the program? >> Not needed prior. >> Great. There is a question about UL. We have another UL certification question. Given UL certification, what type of certification was prior, process, product, personnel, system facility? I don't know if we can say more about that. >> I'm going to go no on that.
But Cedar, Kassie? Okay, no. >> Okay. And this we may follow up in more details. This is another UL certification.
If this technology has an ETL certification but not UL, is it still acceptable for fire life and safety standards? >> Let's follow up on that. >> Okay, sounds good. Can a distributor of a technology submit an RFI application response? >> The answer is yes, although, let me add more to that answer, though. The answer is yes. And, in fact, quite a number of distributors historically have submitted technologies successfully to the program.
But you do want to have that vendor also onboard. So, if you're actually essentially a distributor of say a window film, you want to have the actual manufacturer of the window film also onboard. >> Great. Thank you. And I think this is our last question. Do we respond to the RFI directly on sam.gov, or go through the web based application? Cedar, this is for you.
>> Yeah, you will need to respond via the web based application. And that is linked on sam.gov. So, please go to sam.gov.
You'll find the link both in the RFI document itself, as well as the PDF version of the questions. But you do need to respond via the web based application. >> Great. Well, thank you.
Thank you all for joining us. We appreciate your time. We look forward to receiving your applications. And, again, please reach out with questions. We'll be updating the FAQ with any questions that were asked during today's webinar that weren't already covered. And, again, thanks again for joining us.
2024-08-28