A triage approach to strategic sustainable purchasing: applying spend analysis & SPLC Guidance v1.0

Transcription

1 A triage approach to strategic sustainable purchasing: applying spend analysis & SPLC Guidance v1.0 Brennan Conaway, U.S. GSA Stephan D. Sylvan, U.S. EPA

2 2 Our challenge: translating spend analysis & prioritization to specific action on contract vehicles $450B in annual spending on products & services 25+ large Federal agencies Thousands of contract vehicles Probably thousands of contract vehicle in just priority spend categories Limited time, resources & funding Want to maximize positive federal sustainable purchasing impact using new Executive Order, SPLC, etc. Where to focus?

3 How to translate spend analysis & prioritization to specific action on contract vehicles all federal contracts specific contract vehicles & procurement activities to focus on

4 all federal contracts STEP #1. found lists of largest contract vehicles STEP #2. mapped to priority hotspot spend categories prof serv transp electric construct chem wood food/ag STEP #3. reviewed RFPs/SOWs vs SPLC Guidance v1.0 actions prof serv transp electric construct chem wood food/ag STEP #4. investigating opportunities for influence

5 5 Disclaimers, assumptions, etc. A very preliminary review o Used only publically available information found on the Internet o No extensive QA/QC o Some key data for major contracts could not be found o Some key sustainability data may be in task/deliver orders, not in public RFPs, SOWs, PWSs, etc. Assumptions o Had to make judgment calls as to what action text in SPLC Guidance constitutes a distinct action o Had to make judgment calls as to what text in RFPs, SOW, PWSs qualifies as including SPLC actions o Assumed that all SPLC actions are created equal (no weighting that will come with SPLC rating system) o So if a contract vehicle s SOW referenced 2 out of 6 actions in SPLC Guidance v1.0 for that spend category, we say 33% of SPLC actions were found in the SOW for that contract vehicle (a fairly crude analysis)

6 6 STEP #1 and #2: some of the largest contract Vehicles mapped to priority spend categories Rank Name Agency $B Priority category RFP/SOW/ PWS found? 1 Alliant II Unrestricted GSA 50 Yes Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services (RS3) Defense Health Services Generation I IDIQ (DHS GEN I) Enterprise Solutions 3 Services (ES-3S CHESS) Army 30 transport DoD 20 Army 20 5 ENCORE III DoD Contract Field Team Maintenance (CFT) Air Force 11.4 transport Yes 7 8 Worldwide Personal Protection Services 2 (WPS2) Transformation Twenty One Total Tech Prog Next Gen (T4NG) 9 Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) DoE Human Capital & Training Solutions (HCaTS) GSA 5 Yes State 10 transport Yes VA 9 Yes electricity construction/ren professional services Yes Yes

7 7 STEP #1 and #2: some of the largest contract vehicles mapped to priority spend categories (continued) Rank Name Agency $B Priority category RFP/SOW/ PWS found? 11 KC10A Contractor Logistics Support Engine Support Air Force 4.4 transport Yes 12 Global Network Services (GNS) DoD 4 13 Northeast Infrastructure Solutions (NIS) GSA 4 Yes 14 Enterprise System Development Umbrella (ESD-II) HHS 4 Yes 15 Common Hardware Systems 5 (CHS-5) Army Management and Operation of the Kansas City Plant DoE 3.1 electricity 17 Professional and Tech Support Services (PRO-TECH) Commerce 3 prof services Yes Integrated Research Development for Enterprise Solutions (IRES) KC10A Contractor Logistics Support Depot Maintenance Airframe 20 AEC Idaho Clean Contract Core Project (ICP Core) DoE 2 Yes DoD 2.8 Yes Air Force 2.3 electricity Yes waste mgmt electricity Yes Total funding: $200B+

8 STEP #1 and #2: some of the largest contract vehicles mapped to priority spend categories (continued) # Name Agency $B Priority category RFP/SOW/ PWS found? 21 Domestic delivery services III (DDS3) GSA transport Yes 22 Print management services GSA wood/agrifiber 23 Janitorial and Sanitation Supplies (JANSAN) GSA chem intensive Yes 24 Telecommunications-Wireless Services & Devices GSA Yes 25 Office supplies III (OS3) GSA wood/agrifiber Yes 26 Furniture GSA construction/ren 27 Maintenance, repair & operations (MRO) GSA construction/ren Yes 28 SmartBuy for commercial of-the-shelf software & services 29 Human resources services & training (HRST) GSA prof services Yes 30 Information services LOC wood/agrifiber GSA 31 Building maintenance and operations (BMO) GSA construction/ren chem intensive 32 NASA SEWP V NASA 10 Yes Yes Yes 33 NIH CIO-CS NIH Yes 34 GSA National Information Technology Commodity Program (NP) 2G BPA GSA 8

9 For STEP 3: Translating SPLC Guidance v1.0 into lists of actions by priority spend category # Chemically intensive Construction/Ren Electricity Food/Ag products: with no GHS corrosive warnings, GHS acute toxicity or PPE (personal protective equipment) products: Green Seal, UL-E, EcoLogo, GreenGuard, Safer Choice products: purchase products with reduced solid waste products: concentrated liquid or solid products dispensed thru closed loop dispensing systems cleaning service: Green Seal or CIMS/GB training: user training in safe/ proper product use demand: optimize current space use demand: invest in operational performance benchmark: whole building & sub-meters, ASHRAE level I or II audit, ENERGY STAR portfolio manager, Labs21 demand: ENERGY STAR for lighting, HVAC, appliances, electronics, refrigeration, etc generation: Green-e or equivalent; onsite green demand: structured/high power, offsite w/recs quality telecommuting options obtained separately, offsite w/ RECs, offsite via direct contract whole building level upgrades: LEED for EBOM, LEED for major Renovations/ID+C, ENERGY STAR certif if new construction: LEED ID +C, IgCC, ASHRAE 189.1, ENERGY STAR certification products: ENERGY STAR, WaterSense products: benchmarked vs industry leadership LCA data understand food needs of population served (portion size, nutritional value, cultural, vegetarian diets). data: measure/baseline spend specific to food categories (whole/manufactured, geographic origin, certifications, price, vendor). identify primary impact areas of food purchasing based on categories with highest spend align primary impact areas with institutional goals thru a Food Purchasing Policy demand: explore opportunities to reduce demand & associated waste generation with existing food spend. explore shifting to less impactful food choices (meat/veg mix) products: USDA Organic, Food Alliance Certified, Certified Humane Raised and Handled, Animal Welfare Approved, Salmon Safe, MSC, Aquaculture Stewardship Council, Rainforest Alliance, Fair Food Program, Protected Harvest, Bird Friendly Coffee, Fair Trade Note: The data above should be considered draft. It is based on a preliminary review of contract vehicles. 9

10 For STEP 3: Translating SPLC Guidance v1.0 into lists of actions by priority spend category (continued) # professional services transport wood/agrifiber 1 products: use smaller computers where appropriate; right-size computer needs demand: invest in mobile workforce fuels: reduce need for fuels thru fuel optimization demand: duplexing, print mgmt software, etc products: EPEAT, ENERGY STAR products: when appropriate replace older inefficient computers w/env superior computers demand: power management software demand: explore thin client program data: increase visibility into supply chain data: use tools such as Windows Energy Calculator travel policy to reduce env impact minimize impact on service providers service: define/diffuse screening criteria for service providers service: encourage greener lodging fuels: use low carbon fuels & sustainable biofuels fleet: reduce need for new vehicles thru cross-enterprise collab, car sharing, right-sizing fleet: shift SUV to cars, higher efficiency, greener vehicles including hybrids, AFVs & invest in infrastructure fleet data: track/report fuel efficiency/fuel types fleet: demonstrate improvement over contract life delivery: optimize utilization & logistics; procure ZEVs, LEVs, AFVs delivery: participate in SmartWay Transport product: consider needs in terms of weight, grain, brightness, shade product: purchase paper w/verified reduction in impacts over life cycle product: virgin fiber should be certified from responsibly managed forests. product: if 100% virgin, seek Total Chlorine Free (TCF). product: otherwise seek Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) product: remaining non-virgin paper should be post-consumer recycled provide recycling infrastructure Note: The data above should be considered draft. It is based on a preliminary review of contract vehicles. 10

11 STEP #3: reviewed against SPLC Guidance v1.0 Rank Name Agency $B Priority category SPLC Guidance v1.0 actions in RFP/SOW/PWS 1 Alliant II Unrestricted GSA 50 14% Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services (RS3) Defense Health Services Generation I IDIQ (DHS GEN I) Enterprise Solutions 3 Services (ES-3S CHESS) Army 30 transport 0% DoD 20 TBD Army 20 TBD 5 ENCORE III DoD 12.2 TBD 6 Contract Field Team Maintenance (CFT) Air Force 11.4 transport 0% Worldwide Personal Protection Services 2 (WPS2) Transformation Twenty One Total Tech Prog Next Gen (T4NG) Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) Human Capital & Training Solutions (HCaTS) State 10 transport 0% VA 9 0% DoE 5.5 GSA 5 electricity construction/ren professional services 50% 0% Note: The data above should be considered draft, based on a preliminary review of contract vehicle documentation. 11

12 STEP #3: reviewed against SPLC Guidance v1.0 (continued) Rank Name Agency $B 11 KC10A Contractor Logistics Support Engine Support Priority category SPLC Guidance v1.0 actions in RFP/SOW/PWS Air Force 4.4 transport 0% 12 Global Network Services (GNS) DoD 4 TBD 13 Northeast Infrastructure Solutions (NIS) GSA 4 0% 14 Enterprise System Development Umbrella (ESD-II) HHS 4 0% 15 Common Hardware Systems 5 (CHS-5) Army 3.7 TBD Management and Operation of the Kansas City Plant Professional and Tech Support Services (PRO- TECH) Integrated Research Development for Enterprise Solutions (IRES) KC10A Contractor Logistics Support Depot Maintenance Airframe AEC Idaho Clean Contract Core Project (ICP Core) DoE 3.1 electricity 0% Commerce 3 prof services 0% DoD 2.8 0% Air Force 2.3 electricity 0% DoE 2 waste mgmt electricity 25% Note: The data above should be considered draft, based on a preliminary review of contract vehicle documentation. 12

13 STEP #3: reviewed against SPLC Guidance v1.0 (continued) # Name Agency $B Priority category SPLC Guidance v1.0 actions in RFP/SOW/PWS 21 Domestic delivery services III (DDS3) GSA transport 50% 22 Print management services GSA wood/agrifiber 23 Janitorial and Sanitation Supplies (JANSAN) GSA chem intensive 50% 24 Telecommunications-Wireless Services & Devices GSA 0% 25 Office supplies III (OS3) GSA wood/agrifiber 0% 26 Furniture GSA construction/ren TBD 27 Maintenance, repair & operations (MRO) GSA construction/ren 0% 28 SmartBuy for commercial of-the-shelf software & services 13% GSA TBD 29 Human resources services & training (HRST) GSA prof services 0% 30 Information services LOC wood/agrifiber TBD 31 Building maintenance and operations (BMO) GSA construction/ren chem intensive 32 NASA SEWP V NASA 10 14% 67% 33 NIH CIO-CS NIH 29% 34 GSA National Information Technology Commodity Program (NP) 2G BPA GSA TBD Note: The data above should be considered draft, based on a preliminary review of contract vehicle documentation. 13

14 14 Some lessons learned PROS: A practical way to turn spend analysis into some concrete next step Ensures initial steps are material in terms of sustainability Doesn t require a lot of time, resources or expertise Forward orientation focuses on future opportunities vs. past activities Relatively easy to explain to senior management CONS / CHALLENGES There are limitations with assessing master contracts in this way (RFPs, SOWs, PWSs don t fully indicate or guarantee sustainability performance) Potential to miss some major environmental hotspots (e.g., large # of medium/ small contracts with major hotspots) Focuses on contract vehicle documentation vs. actual products & services delivered

15 15 BACK POCKET SLIDES

16 A federal government sustainability spend analysis Sources: TruthStudio, Carnegie Mellon EIO-LCA 16