Sustainable Products and Services

[Vern Edwards]

FAR Subpart 23.1 , Sustainable Products and Services

FAR 23.104, Policy, paragraph (a):

Quote

 

(a) Agencies shall procure sustainable products and services (as defined in 2.101) to the maximum extent practicable.

(1) Procuring sustainable products and services is considered practicable, unless the agency cannot acquire products or services—

(i) Competitively within a reasonable performance schedule;

(ii) That meet reasonable performance requirements; or

(iii) At a reasonable price (see 23.104(a)(2)).

(2) When considering whether the price of a sustainable product is reasonable, agencies should consider whether the product is cost-effective over the life of the product. For ENERGY STAR® or Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)-designated products, a price is reasonable if it is cost-effective over the life of the product taking energy cost savings into account ( 42 U.S.C. 8259b(b)(2)). Life-cycle cost savings tools for energy-efficient products are available at https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/save_energy_commercial_buildings/ways_save/energy_efficient_products and https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech-lcoe.html.

 

On a scale of 0 to 5:

0 = none at all, 1 = slight, 2 = low, 3 = moderate, 4 = high, 5 = very high

what is that policy's administrative hassle value?

Should small businesses be exempt?

[formerfed]

3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

On a scale of 0 to 5:

0 = none at all, 1 = slight, 2 = low, 3 = moderate, 4 = high, 5 = very high

what is that policy's administrative hassle value?

Should small businesses be exempt?

I see this is at a 5 level.  Much of the sustainable products and services are acquired through lower grade contracting staff used to simplified acquisition procedures and the less complicated contracting methods.  They likely lack the expertise to conduct the required analysis using the referenced life savings costing tools.  So they will ask the requesting/program office to perform the analysis.  In many instances these are logistics and facility management personnel who also will struggle with the tool.  What it boils down to is long delays and high administrative time and expense.

I’ll add my comment really applies towards what I think are the majority of transactions - low dollar value for routine supplies and services, and not for the much fewer number of complex projects agencies undertake.  I’m thinking about the huge number of simple transactions for base level support, agency buildings and facilities, depot and warehousing, etc. In those instances of the more complex acquisitions, performing energy utilization studies is just one of many required to justify, fund, and obtain overall approval to proceed.

Edit:  Or they buy Energy Star stuff or the like without regard to price differences.  Then I would say it’s a “0” in terms of hassle.

[C Culham]

Literally a 5

In reality 0 to 5 depending on what is being acquired but 0 to 1 will most likely be the typical range.

The measure will be how much emphasis is placed FAR subpart 23.1 and administration of FAR clause 52.223-23.

Based on the policy intent small businesses should not be exempt, however one could suggest that the policy itself should be abandoned for all business and let the practices of business take its course.  

I wonder how many of us, in our personal capacity, sit down and do the analysis when buying a new washing machine as compared to what we might do when building a new house?

[WifWaf]

This is and will always remain about a 4 (high) until the following products and services are commercially viable and conveniently procurable:

Quote

FAR 2.101 Definitions.

* * *

Sustainable products and services means products and services that are subject to and meet the following applicable statutory mandates and directives for purchasing:

(1) Statutory purchasing programs.

(i) Products containing recovered material designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (42 U.S.C. 6962) (40 CFR part 247) (https://www.epa.gov/smm/comprehensive-procurement-guideline-cpg-program#products).

(ii) Energy- and water-efficient products that are ENERGY STAR® certified or Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)-designated products (42 U.S.C. 8259b) (10 CFR part 436, subpart C) (https://www.energy.gov/eere/femp/search-energy-efficient-products and https://www.energystar.gov/products?s=mega).

(iii) Biobased products meeting the content requirement of the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the BioPreferred® program (7 U.S.C. 8102) (7 CFR part 3201) (https://www.biopreferred.gov).

(iv) Acceptable chemicals, products, and manufacturing processes listed under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, which ensures a safe and smooth transition away from substances that contribute to the depletion of stratospheric ozone (42 U.S.C. 7671l) (40 CFR part 82, subpart G) (https://www.epa.gov/snap).

(2) Required EPA purchasing programs.

(i) WaterSense® labeled (water efficient) products and services (https://www.epa.gov/watersense/watersense-products).

(ii) Safer Choice-certified products (products that contain safer chemical ingredients) (https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/products).

(iii) Products and services that meet EPA Recommendations of Specifications, Standards, and Ecolabels in effect as of October 2023 (https://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/recommendations-specifications-standards-and-ecolabels-federal-purchasing).

At 89 FR 30212 we learn the background of this rule (emphasis my own):

Quote

I. Background

On December 8, 2021, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability. Section 208(a) directs agencies to reduce emissions, promote environmental stewardship, support resilient supply chains, drive innovation, and incentivize markets for sustainable products and services by purchasing sustainable products and services in accordance with relevant statutory requirements, and, to the maximum extent practicable, as identified or recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The rule-drafter's intent is to prop up a number of markets.  Will it succeed?  We could measure success of this rule by whether or not these products become COTS (e.g., available at your local Lowes or Home Depot).

By when does the government know its attempt to incentivize a market has failed?  We'll have to measure that by number of years propped up without viability or availability, I suppose.

When should a government prop up a market?  I venture to say it's whenever a gross, bipartisan, known injustice occurs between a supplier's profit motive and the majority of consumers' health.  Why couldn't we just take a nationwide popular vote on issues like this?

[dsmith101abn]

My agency does have a sustainability team that can assist contractors, COs/PMs. 

From a CO standpoint it’s a 1 or 2. From a project or program managers standpoint, probably or a 4 or 5.

So depending on what way I look at the question I could rate a 1 or 5.  

While challenging, Small businesses should not be exempt. Agencies should be helping. For example fly ash. most people wouldn't know what that is if you didn't have a team to educate them. 

[Vern Edwards]

@dsmith101abn Thanks!