GSA/DOE 2021 RFI for Technologies that Reduce Carbon Emissions
>> Well, hello, everyone, and welcome to today's webinar on the joint GSA/DOE RFI for technologies that reduce carbon emissions. We're going to get started just momentarily. But before doing so, I wanted to go over a few logistics. So, today's recording webinar is being recorded.
And it will be shared with our mailing list, as well as posted to the GSA website. And right now, you're all in listen mode. And you can use the Q&A button that you see at the bottom of the Zoom window to open, to open the panel and to ask any questions.
And the Q&A will happen after all the presentations, but you don't need to wait to ask questions. In fact, we encourage you to ask them well in advance. Before turning the presentation over to Kevin Powell, the Director of GSA's Center for Emerging Building Technologies and the Green Proving Ground, I'm going to launch a poll to get a sense of what type of entity you all are representing.
And we'll give you all a few minutes to answer that, and then close the poll. Great. I'm going to go ahead and answers are trickling in, but I'm going to go ahead and end the poll and share those results. And it's great to see so many small businesses.
And with that, Kevin, I'd like to turn the presentation over to you. >> Thanks. Thanks, Andrea. And it is great to see such a diversity of people out there and of course the representation of small businesses important both to this administration and to our program. And I want to thank all of you for having taken time out of your day to join us for this webinar.
This is our Green Proving Ground's 10th birthday. And truly it is, it is the many companies that have been interested in our program from just a casual presentation of capability to full participation in one of our test bed evaluations that make, make the past decade feel really very, very consequential. Over the next hour, we'll be giving a brief overview of the DOE and GSA test bed program, since you're submitting your information to through this RFI, to the types of technologies we're looking for, and to the mechanics of submitting information to and participating in our program. And we'll leave plenty of time for Q&A. Next slide. As many of you know, the administration has, excuse me, set real bold goals for us to reduce the carbon intensity of our federal facilities.
As energy secretary Jennifer Granholm said in a statement earlier this year, America's path to a net zero carbon economy runs straight through our buildings. And we, we at GSA, and at DOR, are very excited about this year's RFI, because we think it will be central in guiding our agency's new investments and initiatives to unlock the power of innovation for cleaner buildings. Next slide. So, a quick introduction to our speakers today. You have myself, of course, and we have Robert Meagley, who is still a new guy on our DOE team, and has agreed to yet again cover not only his own program at the Solar Energy Technologies Office, but also the two other program offices, who are sponsoring this RFI at DOE, the Building Technologies Office, and the Federal Energy Management Program.
Next up will be Wale Odukomaiya, who is the Technical Lead for this Request for Information at the National Renewable Energy Lab, or NREL. Wale will provide a more detailed description of the types of technologies we're seeking. Last up, and most importantly, Jeff Wanner, who is the Project Lead for this RFI, will cover all of the logistics and the mechanics for your submission, and what to expect if you are selected as a semi finalist.
One person who is not up here on this slide is Tyler Harris, who has just joined us program, and he is managing our Pilot Portfolio Program. He's going to facilitate the Q&A. So, or next slide.
Yeah, so a couple of minutes just to describe our Green Proving Ground Program slide. First, a word about GSA, or the U.S. General Services Administration. We are the landlord for the civilian federal government. And that means we do one thing. And because of our scale and our mission, I think we do it remarkably well. We build, operate, maintain commercial space that provides state of the art workplaces that help our tenet agencies deliver their programs at best value to the taxpayer.
One way we accomplish this is by smart investments in next generation technologies. Next slide. As I mentioned earlier, we started the GPG program a decade ago. The program was stood up to answer a simple question by the commissioner of GSA at the time. We had invested a lot in innovative technologies as part of the Recovery Act. Remember that previous crisis and previous big investment? We wanted to know which ones worked best so that we might direct our future investments towards those technologies.
That effort was very successful, so we operationalized that as a program, the Green Proving Ground, via the RFI that we're discussing, which we have issued annually ever since. Next slide. I guess the good thing, or a good thing about turning 10 is that you can look back and see where you've been.
And, in short, as of last year, COVID delayed our tracking of this year's number, more than 80 technologies have been selected for evaluation by the program. Twenty three of those, we have had positive outcomes, and we've invested in deploying those widely. And I think that number at the bottom of the slide probably is the most important of all. It's a lot lifecycle cost avoidance.
It's actually also a lot of carbon avoidance that goes along with that. So, with that background, I am going to, Andrea, can you launch the second poll? Thank you. So, we'd like you to fill this out. Then I'll turn this over to Rob Meagley.
Andrea, I can't quite see what is happening with poll results. >> So far, we have 19% participation. So, we'll wait just a minute more, and then close the poll.
>> Okay, thank you. >> And I'm getting some responses. People aren't seeing the poll. I'm not sure where it is on your window. It should pop up.
It might be, you can see it in the control bar where it polls up here. And I realize that there probably should be none of the above, so I'm going to go ahead and end the poll, and we can get a sense. >> Wow. There should be, there should be a non I agree,
but this is really quite interesting set of results. In particular, it's great to see so many people who participated in the ESTCP program. Our program coordinates very closely with ESTCP.
And then, of course, FEMP as well, and all of the many other evaluation programs. So, with that, let me turn this over to Rob Meagley. >> Well, thank you very much, Kevin. I really enjoy being a part of this webinar today, and a part of this exciting program, and presenting the Department of Energy, the first office that I'd like to discuss is the Solar Energy Technologies Office, my office. I work within the manufacturing, or the manufacturing and competitiveness team.
If you could give me the next slide, please. You can see that the Solar Energy Technologies Office is composed of four additional teams. And you can think of these as four additional technologies. There's affordable Tax, Systems Integration, which is involved with managing the power coming from the photovoltaics, or concentrating solar power, and distributing it out to either the grid or work really on site, also storage and other considerations, such as modeling. The strategic analysis and institutional support is concerned with minimizing costs around photovoltaics, systems integration, and concentrating solar power. They're also involved with working with emerging technologies and planning how the workforce will rise to the challenge of the substantial technology innovation and deployment.
And then finally concentrating solar power rather than converting sunlight directly into electricity, instead manages sunlight as a source of intense heat for, for instance, industrial process or other applications where the heat can be converted through [inaudible] electricity, for instance, and through generation critical CO2 turbine. So, in general, we're looking at an enormous amount of activity, as SETO supports early stage research and development in those three main technology areas; PV, CSP, and systems integration, with [inaudible], well, nearly 400, 375 active projects in 47 states. And you can see that it's split pretty evenly between businesses, non profits, the national laboratories, and university support. The manufacturing and competitiveness team that I represent is the transition point from basically research and laboratory into small and medium sized businesses, even larger businesses, for full on deployment and scale up. And so we work very closely with the GPG HID to make sure that the pipeline is full of interesting and innovative, and most importantly, manufacturable solar energy technologies.
May I have the next slide, please? The Federal Energy Management Program, or FEMP, is focused on making sure that the federal agencies can meet their energy related goals, largely in, you know, working with various stakeholders to improve the efficiencies of systems, and ensure that the various goals of the agencies and other stakeholders can be met, and that technology is ready in advance of that need. FEMP collaborates through the DOE with National Laboratories and potential validation sites, which is, of course, a critical part of this GPG HID program. You can think of FEMP integrating, for instance, between Building Technology Office and National Laboratories and other federal partners.
And they are a critical piece of the DOE's involvement with this program. May I have the next slide, please? The Building Technologies Office represents the innovation in how building, buildings respond to the challenge again in making energy and related technologies more efficient for homes and buildings so that the U.S. can be more sustainable, more secure, and prosperous. The Commercial Buildings Subprogram is focused on accelerating voluntary uptake of significant energy performance improvements in both existing and new commercial buildings. I think it's pretty obvious that field evaluations would play a really critical part of that program. These test bed projects form the basis for the real world performance information and feedback that the firms originating technology require for further development and successful deployment.
May I have the next slide, please? So, you can see that there is a vast array of partnerships on this slide. Non federal organizations play an integral role in technology field evaluation. Voluntary structured partnerships provide an ongoing pathway through which technical needs are identified as well as integrating these with field test sites that may be applicable for evaluation across many technologies and systems. Building Technologies Office partners with more than 250 organizations.
And these are largely through the Better Buildings Alliance. May I have the next slide, please? The Better Building Partners represent 32 of the Fortune 100 companies; 12 of the top 25 U.S. employers, and 30% of commercial building for space in the United States. And that wraps it up for the Department of Energy. >> All right, thanks. Thanks, Rob.
So, as mentioned, my name is Wale Odukomaiya. I'm with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Over the next few slides, I will kind of get into some of the details of the types of technologies that we are looking for with this year's RFI. Hopefully you guys can hear me okay.
Next slide, please. All right, so, in a nutshell, we're looking for technologies that have significant potential to decarbonize U.S. commercial buildings. And so we're looking for technologies that are early commercial, so they should already be available in the marketplace within, within the last few years, and be kind of ready for wide scale deployment and evaluation in occupied operational buildings. These should be retrofittable technologies, because they will be be demonstrated in existing commercial buildings. In terms of technology categories, we kind of have three broad technology categories that we're targeting this year. The first is high performance, low carbon technologies for buildings.
The second is technologies that can provide on site energy generation and storage behind the meter. And the third is greenhouse gas or carbon reduction technologies. And I'll kind of get into some examples of these in the next few slides.
Next slide, please. So, again, first category, we're looking at high performance, low carbon technologies or solutions. We have a few examples listed here. Technologies that electrify major loads that are currently fuel fired are of particular interest. Technologies that are heat pump technologies, especially larger, larger size heat pump technologies for commercial buildings that are appropriate for cold climates.
We're looking for packaged heat pump systems with water heating or integrated with make up air systems. And here we're really looking for turnkey solutions that don't require a whole lot of customization that are plug and play that can be delivered at this site and installed very easily. We're also looking for innovative retrofit technologies that can capture and manage waste heat in creative or unique ways.
And we're also looking for building envelope retrofit solutions that can improve the energy performance of the building envelope or building shell. Next slide, please. As mentioned, we're looking for on site energy generation storage technologies. This can range from innovative, PV, and storage technologies, building integrated photovoltaics, high efficiency PV cell and modules, we're interested in solar thermal and geothermal as well.
Even, even non, non building mounted on site distributed wind is of interest. And hydrogen fuel cell technologies that can provide on site power. In terms of the integrated photovoltaics and storage, we're really looking for different approaches to integrating with the Building Management System that provide efficiencies that are not available with existing technologies.
Next slide, please. Lastly, we are looking for technologies that have significant potential to reduce greenhouse gases or carbon emissions. So, I mentioned heat pumps earlier, so technologies that use next generation low or no global warming potential refrigerants. And we're also looking for on site carbon capture technologies for fuel fired processes. So, we recognize that some loads in buildings are going to be very hard to electrify in the near term. And so technologies that can prevent associated carbon emissions from going into, into the environment are of interest as well.
Next slide, please. Okay, so, this year, we're also interested in novel financing approaches and business models that can accelerate uptake of some of the previously mentioned low carbon technologies. So, ideally, the strongest applications are going to be applications that pair a novel financing approach and/or business model with some of the technologies that I covered in the previous slide. And so we strongly encourage applicants to think about kind of the business side as well, and how to, how to drive wide scale deployment in terms of the financing and the business model. Next slide, please. So, what does success look like, or what does a successful application look like? These are kind of the criteria, the measurable criteria that we will be evaluating applications based on.
So, they should be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and this should be quantified. They should reduce primary energy, including electricity and fuel. They should wear applicable enable on site energy generation. They should also achieve reasonable simple payback periods. And this is where kind of the novel financing approaches or business models that I mentioned in the previous slide come into play as well.
All right, and next slide. With that, I'll hand it over to my colleague, Jeff, to talk about the RFI mechanics and how you can participate this year. >> Thanks, Wale.
Yeah, so go ahead and jump into it. Just to check, everybody's got my audio okay? Great, okay. So, as Wale mentioned, we're kind of covering the nuts and bolts that are here. We're going to talk about the RFI requirements and resources that are available to support your submittals, review criteria for the submissions, the level of participation we expect from the technology providers, and other stakeholders, and then the timeline for review, and the validations, which will be the results moving forward.
Jump to the next slide. So, with that, oh, sorry, go back one for me. Okay, so, RFI submissions, details can currently be found at sam.gov, and also on the GSA GPG website, emerging, emerging building technologies website, those links are in the slide deck, which if you haven't received them yet, you'll receive the slide deck after this presentation. Responses will be accepted through December 7th at 12:59.
And that will be a hard stop, so please get submittals in before that closing time. If you have questions, there will be a contact at the end of this deck, and questions can be submitted. And we're available for follow up conversations if that's necessary. And we can jump to the next one.
So, once the RFI period closes and submissions are in, I'll just kind of go over the process. And this kind of will give some guidance on what we're looking for. What we're looking for first is notable differentiators, and what distinguishes these technologies from things that are already in the market, and what's already available and been proven. Secondly, we're looking for performance characteristics, and the benefits, and improvements the technology provides. So, how does it really improve the operations or improve the efficiency of the buildings? We'll be quantifying the savings potential in terms of carbon reduction and energy savings. And then return on investments.
Fourth, the market opportunity for the technology, both for GSA and for the commercial building stock at large. Fifth, how ready is technology for wide market deployment? And the appropriate timeline that we have for this program and project. We'll go into the TR level another slide later. The down select includes technical analysis from experts, such as Wale. And then review and ranking by members of this panel and others among our team and industry experts.
And then final determinations by leaderships within the DOE and GSA. You can go to the next slide. So, the benefits of participation, just to cover that briefly, the private and public sector validations are completed within working functional buildings, so we'll provide technical validation of the technologies by third party subject matter experts, such as Wale. And that M&V and the details that come out are certainly available for the finalists and the technology providers to better inform their future work. That information is also disseminated amongst better buildings partners, GSA, and then potentially presented at conferences and in case study documents as well.
The validations were used by GSA, as Kevin mentioned earlier. It's kind of the procurement process that GSA does for new opportunities and new solutions that they should be implementing more broadly in their portfolio. Next slide. I mentioned technical readiness for market.
And this kind of slide touches on that. We need technologies that are deployable and ready. Certifications that are necessary for implementation include things such as a UL certification and other safety and criterias related to that. For GSA deployment and GSA procurement, BBA and TAA are required.
They're not necessary for the validations, but if you do plan to have your technology bought more so by GSA, those are necessary down the road. And then also sector specific certifications, such as EPEAT related to solar voltaics and others that may be required. You can go to the next slide. Program participation, for validations in this RFI will be completed in GSA buildings.
The core technology and equipment must be gifted to GSA. In the DOE HID program, validations are typically purchased and procured as an agreement between the technology provider and the host site. In GSA facilities, GSA does cover the cost of installation per the technology provider's guidance.
In the non GSA facilities, part of the DOE HID program, it may be a private sector or a public sector facility. We are, we are open to sites and partnerships that the technology provider may have. So, it's certainly ideal, if you have any guidance or guidelines on the type of facility, or existing relationships, please include those in your submission. Throughout all the steps of this, these validations, the site selection, the installation, the M&V and reporting, we certainly want the technology provider to be engaged and included in the process. That includes in supporting the lab, lab primary investigators, developing the site selection criteria, and the M&V characteristics, and then available for participating in meetings with the host site and potentially site visits when it comes to actual deployment and specific site selections. We can go to the next slide.
The roles and responsibilities. So, there are a lot of stakeholders and a lot of players in this, in this program. Federal project, from the federal side, and DOE side, there will be a project manager that oversees milestones and approves the steps to the validation, a lab researcher or primary investigator will be serving as the project lead, and they will be developing the site criteria, the M&V plan, and validation characteristics. And then also collecting the data and developing the case study or validation. They will really be the primary point of contact, and the one that the technology provider interacts the most with. Host sites are expected to provide leadership as well in both background information and baseline details to help move the steps forward.
Technology provider, as we mentioned in the FAS side, we were looking for their involvement throughout all steps. And really it becomes pertinent to the success of a validation, and certainly to your business, it should be as well. Next slide.
So, briefly highlight the markets where potential validations will occur through this RFI. DOE can reach any type of building. Commercial building, historically it's been private sector.
And frequently better buildings partners. But with this RFI in recent times, we are looking to deploy more widely, so we are looking for other markets and markets that have been left behind in the past. GSA's portfolio, as Kevin went into, covers the large part of the building stock in the U.S.
with a large percentage of those, 90 plus percent being large office buildings, so technologies that cater towards those markets, commercial spaces, and this type of commercial building, are certainly those that will be receipt of best intention. Next slide. This timeline provides a high level look at the key dates of the RFI review and downselect. Semi finalists will submit responses to review and feedback.
That feedback will be assessed and ranked by reviewers, and then by the panel. With that, we will reach a determination of semi finalists. And semi finalists will be asked to submit responses to questions that come from reviewers, and also a video presentation, which can then be reviewed.
After that, we will have final Q&As and one on one presentations in a live format video conference with those semi finalists, which will lead to the final selection of the technologies that we would like to validate. Next slide. This graph kind of gives an idea of the timeline. After technology validations, in April, May, this is kind of the path we look to follow. We are really looking at six months or so of lead up to where a final site is selected. That really is the time when we need the most engagement from the vendor in determining a site and making sure it meets the characteristics and requirements for their technology.
And looking to implement or deploy in around the end of the year. And certainly this could be, this is dependent on the type of technology and the seasonality of it, and baseline data that needs to be collected prior. But this is generally the course we like to follow. Next slide. As I mentioned earlier, the GPG GSA site link, the website at the GSA website for the program, you can find a lot more details on past recipients, past awardees for this RFI. And that includes case studies and results of prior selections.
So, certainly review material there. And with that, I think we can close it out. And the next slide, we'll open it up to Tyler, and questions and responses. >> All right, we have a number of questions that came in. I just wanted to highlight a couple things before we get into questions.
One, if you have a specific question that wasn't answered here, or we weren't able to get to it, or it may be too specific, please feel free to e mail directly to the GPG at gsa.gov's e mail address there, and we'll be able to respond to those directly. And also, we also have frequently asked questions on the gsa.gov/gpg site. And a lot of your questions that you're already asking here are defined in there as well. So, please feel free to look through that FAQ at your convenience. But the first question that we have for the panelists that we're going to answer here is for Wale.
And it's how far in advance of commercial availability would you consider a product for evaluation? >> Thanks, Tyler. So, that's a good question. In previous years, we have considered both early commercial and pre commercial technologies. We are not doing that this year. So, only, only early commercial technologies that are already available on the market, that, you know, have a very short pathway to wide scale deployment are in scope this year.
So, no, no pre commercial technologies. >> Okay. The next question we have, it looks like for Jeff, is this RFI limited to U.S. manufacture technologies only as stated in the press release on October 14th?
I could not find any restriction on the RFI that is actually posted by GSA. >> Yeah, I appreciate that question. And, no, it is not. A pathway to built my American, to BBA compliance is certainly valuable, but U.S. manufacture is not required for submissions and responses for this RFI or the ultimate selections from this RFI. >> Great, thanks.
Looks like the next question is for Kevin. It seems as if preferred technologies and solutions are usually widgets that can be donated unconditionally in sufficient quantity to test and evaluate its performance. Are you open to solutions that involve software or online technologies, especially those that may support or facilitate strategic planning to improve a site's energy use or carbon emissions or quantify carbon usage? >> That's a long question. And there's a short answer, which is yes. That is to say, widgets are fine.
Systems and software solutions, software as a service solutions, are certainly welcome, and actually not only are they in scope, they have been some of the most promising technologies we've evaluated in the past few years. >> Excellent. All right, looks like we've got another question for you, Kevin.
What is considered a reasonable payback period? >> Right, reasonable. Well, the official definition of reasonable is if lifecycle cost effective. So, obviously it would be unreasonable to have a technology that costs more than it would ever save. Hard to invest in that.
A more nuanced answer to this is that investment tends to be targeted. Shorter paybacks are more attractive, if you think about third party financing and what it would take to include your technology in a third party financed effort, that would certainly be a good measure. And in the current, in the current context of net zero carbon buildings, you know, if you had a technology that just delivers extraordinary carbon savings and has sort of uncertain return on investment because carbon pricing isn't really very mature at this point, I think you would, you'd want to note that. And I think, you know, again, there would be a lot of consideration for that, because we recognize that, you know, payback is a snapshot in time.
And in the past, things were stable in the future. We're expected pretty dynamic changes relative particularly to utility tariffs and potentially carbon pricing. Thank you. >> Great answer. All right, Wale, can you give us some examples of technologies besides heat pumps? >> Yeah, thanks, Tyler. So, this question is a little bit vague.
I'm assuming the asker is referring to electric heat pumps. Certainly heat pumps is a very broad, broad term. Where are they interested in heat pumps this year? Like I mentioned throughout the presentation, that can be many things, right? It can be heat pumps for space heating or cooling. It can be heat pumps for water heating. There is, there's even heat driven heat pumps that aren't necessarily electricity driven, but are still considered heat pumps.
So, I would say all of the above are of interest, provided that there's a clear pathway to, you know, significant energy and carbon reduction. I'm happy to provide for insight if this person can clarify exactly what they mean. But I'll leave it at that for now. >> Yeah, maybe any question that doesn't get fully answered, make sure and e mail that in to that e mail address. All right, another one for you, Wale.
Does this include building envelope as well as equipment innovations or enhancement technologies? >> Yes, it does. For building envelope technologies, it must be retrofittable. As I mentioned during the presentation, this is, these will be demonstrated and evaluated on existing GSA buildings or private sector buildings through the HID program. And so as long as it's retrofittable, it's in scope. >> All right, back over to Kevin.
Are the factors for consideration listed in order of importance or relevance on the RFI? >> We are actually considering all of those factors equally. >> Equal. All right, this one is for Jeff. Is it possible for a team to submit a joint proposal? And if so, is that helpful or not in the evaluation process? >> It's certainly allowed. And we've had some in the past that have been selections from that. I think it would be, depending on the strength of the team and what they, what they could bring to the table, it's not going to differentiate necessarily.
>> All right, this one, back over to Kevin. Does the definition of technology include oh, it looks like we already kind of answered this one, but I'll reask it just to be sure it's fully answered. Does the definition of technology include software that would meet all the other objectives of the RFI? And I think the answer was yes.
>> Answer is a definitive yes. And just to be 100% clear, that includes software, and that includes software as a service. >> Great. All right, back over to Wale. What's the possibility of adding a consideration to this RFI, the benefits of natural daylighting and ventilation through solar powered skylights, tied into building management systems that regulate the use of artificial lighting with lumen and occupancy sensors and HVAC systems? >> So, again, I would say as long as the technology is sufficiently novel from anything that's currently on the market and widely available, and shows potential for significant energy reduction and carbon emission reduction, then I would encourage you to go ahead and apply. For technologies like this that may not be as tangible as other technology types, I think ensuring that you quantify the potential benefits appropriately in your, in your response, is going to be really important. So, that includes any supplementary material you can share in terms of previous studies or previous demonstrations, just making, trying as much as possible to make the value proposition as crisp as possible.
>> Excellent. All right, back over to Kevin. How does the preference for novel financing approaches work with the realities of the somewhat less than novel typical government procurement processes? >> There's a bit of editorializing in that one. So, I would say that's a, I think that's a somewhat, well, it's a loaded question and a complicated answer. But to keep this simple, the federal government, I think what they mean by less than novel is that it's our federal procurement process is definitely cumbersome and challenging. And a lot of that has to do with the need for both transparency and, you know, a level playing field for all, all parties.
Remember the federal government. We don't want to [inaudible]. So, Federal Acquisition Register is how we do things. And there's a lot of law around that. So, that's, I think, what's meant by the less than novel part. And the truth is that the federal government has, I think, really within those constraints, always had actually a fair amount of innovation in the financing.
And I think our use of ESPCs, Energy Savings Performance Contracts, and UESCs, is, I think really speaks to that, and probably are the largest user of that kind of third party financing around. We had a semifinalist that, you know, I think was, you know, people really liked it, and it was, you know, ready to move forward, actually sort of logistical challenges prevented that from being ultimately test bedded. That was cooling as a service, which, again, I think is, we're going to third party would operate the entire cooling plant, deliver a set of performance, and actually arbitrage some of the time and use pricing as part of their model. I thought that was super interesting.
Everybody thought that was super interesting. That was something we actually determined we could do. There's been some other even more innovative approaches that are kind of challenges within the FAR. But this longwinded answer really is meant to encourage you, if you do have a novel financing approach, and you, especially if you want to integrate that with a typology package, I think that would be, I strongly encourage you to bring that whole package to the table.
>> Great. All right, Kevin, again, does the technology or product have to be gifted? Are there other options to get funding for the product or technology? >> Yeah. So, the answer to that is twofold. For you to participate in the federal test bed program that GSA is operating, yes, you have to gift the technology or product. And that's less about the cost share, more about, again, that acquisition, as well as our, the way we handle at GSA the intellectual property protection and the gifting, sort of a one shot approach that satisfies both of those.
For the private sector, for the HID program, and you're applying to both of these programs, right, you're applying to the GPG program and the HID program at the same time, the HID program happens to be private sector facilities, which are not bound by federal acquisition rules. And each of those is negotiated independently. So, in that case, you know, you could find a private sector site that is willing to be your cost share partner, that is going to invest in the technology.
And, therefore, that's how that, that's how that moves forward. What is consistent is that we are paying for the evaluation. And I should also note, on the federal side, we pay for the installation. We just don't pay for the technology itself. >> Perfect.
And another one here for you, Kevin, are you only interested in retrofit envelope solutions, or will new construction solutions be considered for small new construction projects case by case? >> That's a complicated answer. And as you've heard from Wale, we've really done a round on this. The overarching intent of this RFI is to look for retrofit solutions. With that said, we have had some, you know, I guess, you know, right on point with this, essentially small new construction projects, or major, minor, minor renovations, I guess you could say.
We have had technology successfully apply and been selected that are in that category, so I wouldn't rule that out. >> Okay, another one here for you, Kevin. Do you accept sites that are collaborations with state or local governments? >> Yeah, that one may be more complicated, because I'm not 100% sure what is meant by that.
But, you know, going back to the nature of the two programs, in the past, in technologies that have been selected, actually that are currently active in their test bed validation, as part of the HID program, there are state and local and, you know, school board [inaudible] locations that are essentially evaluating the same technology that we're evaluating at a federal site. So, like I said, well, actually maybe I didn't say actually, I'm not sure, we got to this, part of the intent of this program is to make sure that we have a wide deployment recommendation at the end of the day. So, we're clearly interested in GSA. Obviously we are, as one of our former commissioners used to say, we're governed by our enlightened selfish interest.
We're looking for things that we, solve our problems at GSA, and, you know, we can invest in at GSA. But from Department of Energy's perspective, they're looking to catalyze the whole market. And the much larger commercial real estate market. And to do that, we want to extrapolate from federal test bed results. But we also want to include private sector spaces. And that may include state, local, school board type locations as well.
And, in fact, has consistently. >> All right, Wale, buckle up. There's a few in a row here for you. Are the technology maturity requirements different for GSA and DOE FEMP? >> So, for the purposes of this program, no, they are not.
And, again, as Kevin kind of alluded to, there's the GSA GPG Green Proving Ground cited the program. And also the DOE [inaudible] technology, or HID side of the program. But it's one joint application.
And so technology maturity requirements are not different. >> Next one for you, Wale. When do you consider a technology widely available versus early commercial on that same line? They're trying to find this line. >> Yeah. There is no kind of very precise definition here.
I would say use your best judgment. If it's something that your neighbor who is not a technologist has probably heard of, then it may not be a great fit for this program. The idea here is that the GSA and the DOE should be able to play a role in significant market penetration with your technology. Right? So, if you've done a bunch of demonstrations previously and you have a bunch of customers in your portfolio and you've been around for a while, the role of GSA and DOE in pushing that further is probably [inaudible].
No precise definition. Use your best judgment. Feel free to reach out separately and we can maybe discuss specific technologies in further detail.
>> Great. >> I raised my hand, because I just want to sort of pile onto that. This is like really, there is a bit of an art form to figuring out whether or not you would benefit from participating.
There are two ways to think about this. Number one is that if you already have, as Wale said, a bunch of field demonstrations, and you're really, essentially you have a business process problem of trying to get uptake in the market, this isn't going to help you, right? You've already done all of your field validations. On the other hand, if you have a technology that's very early stage and you don't really have a clear path to fully produce it and commercialize it, then you're really too early stage.
The best way to think about this is that these programs are looking to drive investment, so you want something that's early stage, that has some degree of uncertainty about its field performance, but that you have a pathway to fully commercialize, if it works out, and then we said, okay, now we want to go and buy a lot of it. Hopefully that helps. >> Thank. Good addition there. Wale, got another question here for you.
Are we looking at both embodied and operational GHGs or carbon? >> Yeah, that's a great question. I would say we're mostly looking at considering the fact that we're mostly focused on retrofittable solutions, I mean, there are kind of special cases, as Kevin alluded to earlier. But considering that fact, yeah, we're mostly looking at operational greenhouse gas emissions. There are technologies that, retrofittable technologies that offer significant embodied greenhouse gas emissions reductions compared to their, you know, widely available competitor or incumbent, then I would say that would be interesting to look at as well.
>> Okay, another one here for you, Wale. Are GEB technology solutions within the scope of this solicitation? >> That is a great question. And I'll give my answer. But I'd love for Kevin to weigh in on that too.
We've had a previous RFI focused on GEB. And so my guess is we likely would not be as excited about a GEB solution this time around. But, again, if you can show, if you can show significant potential for energy and carbon impact, then I would say it's in scope. >> And I would, I think that's a completely spot on answer, Wale. And the only thing I would add is, you know, take a look at what we selected, and then clearly define what's different about your GEB solution. GEB is a huge opportunity space, and we only selected, we selected four total technology packages for that program.
So, take a look at what we have, and then define how yours would be different. >> Okay. Let's see, another question here for Wale. Is a university or a national lab eligible? >> No. So, universities and labs are not eligible to submit complications. We're looking for companies that have a commercial product. >> Okay, but they could go in partnership, or no? >> National labs, I believe, cannot go in partnership.
Universities, potentially, depending on the nature of the partnership. I think that would kind of have to be a case by case thing. >> All right, yeah, if you have a specific question on that, I'd encourage you to e mail it.
Another one here for Wale. Is there a place for involvement for non profits? Similar to that last question. >> Yes, so non profits are eligible. If you're a non profit and you're partnering with a technology manufacturer that you are eligible. One thing I'll add to that is this year we are also very interested in technologies that are uniquely positioned to impact underserved communities, or neglected communities.
And so if you are a non profit working with a technology company and you have a novel financing approach or business model that, you know, is of particular interest to traditionally underserved communities, we're particularly interested in that this year. >> All right, thank you so much. We did get a lot more questions. And I wish we could get through all of them. I'm going to turn it back over to Andrea to wrap us up. And just appreciate everyone's participation.
>> Thanks, Tyler. And thanks to all panelists. And we did get a lot of questions. We will update the frequently asked questions that are already posted on gsa.gov with some of these questions that aren't already included in those top FAQs. And as stated, we will be sending out a copy of the slides, as well as a copy of the recording of the presentation.
And the deadline for submission is December 7th at midnight Eastern Standard Time. So, that's when we're looking for all those submissions to be received. Any questions, please reach out to GPG at gsa.gov. And thanks, everyone, for attending. And thank you, panelists.
Bye.
2024-06-27 21:13
