Meeting — Oct. 26, 2023

GSA Acquisition Policy Federal Advisory Committee (GAP FAC) Policy & Practice Subcommittee Meeting

October 26, 2023

The GSA Acquisition Policy Federal Advisory Policy & Practice Subcommittee convened for a public meeting at 3:00 PM on October 26, 2023, virtually via Zoom, with Luke Bassis, Chair, presiding. In accordance with FACA, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App 2, the meeting was open to the public from 3:00 P.M. to 5:00 PM EST.

Meeting agenda

Committee members present

Luke Bassis, Chairperson Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Richard Beutel, George Mason University
Nicole Darnall, Arizona State University
Antonio Doss, Small Business Administration
Mark Hayden, State of New Mexico
Jennie Romer, Environmental Protection Agency

Absent

Leslie Cordes, Amlan Mukherjee, Steven Schooner, Stacy Smedley, Nigel Stephens, Anish Tilak, David Wagger, Kimberly Wise-White

Guest speakers and presenters

N/A

GSA staff present

Boris Arratia, Designated Federal Officer
Stephanie Hardison, Deputy Designated Federal Officer
Skylar Holloway, GAP FAC Support
Caryn Broome, Closed Captioner
Jill Lamoreaux, ASL Interpreter
Scott Merk, ASL Interpreter

Call to order

Boris Arratia, Designated Federal Officer, opened the public meeting by welcoming the group before reminding the public that there would be time for comments and statements at the end of the meeting. He then performed a roll call to confirm attendance and a quorum. After the quorum was met, he turned the meeting over to Chairperson Luke Bassis.

Introductory remarks

Chairman Luke Bassis welcomed the committee and emphasized that today would be a working meeting. This is the last public meeting before the group presents their recommendations to GSA on December 5. Luke created weekly check-ins with the task groups to monitor progress before the full committee meeting.

Subcommittee business

Before diving into the task-groups, Luke invited the subcommittee members to share any relevant information they learned that could be helpful to the group. Nicole Darnall shared a summary from the Acquisition Workforce’s subcommittee (AWFS) meeting earlier in the week. The AWFS learned how the IRS and the Department of the Treasury use artificial intelligence and other technologies to accelerate sustainability integration into procurement. They’re using cutting-edge technologies to inform their work. David Gill is developing white papers based on the Treasury’s initiatives to facilitate sustainability activities across the Federal government. There’s some overlap with Amlan Mukherjee’s work, and seeing the discussions moving forward is encouraging.

Nicole will get in touch with Amlan soon to ensure efforts are aligned.

PFAS Task Group update

The first task group to give a report out was the PFAS task group. Jennie Romer and Richard Beutel led the update. They shared that the task force is working on outlining the options for GSA, specifically regarding information collection on product labeling.

They explore different approaches and recognize the need to address situations where labeling might not exist. They still need to refine this work and have another meeting to progress.

David Wagger previously discussed the complexity of developing an echo label for PFAS products due to the chemistry involved and the overlap with other initiatives in this space. There are various industry sectors and aspects to consider, but defining what would be implemented is essential.

Boris added that he has been coordinating with various people within GSA and collecting input on the PFAS topic. Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) is updating tools like GSA Advantage to identify PFAS and has been working on addressing low-hanging fruit related to PFAS. Ensuring that our efforts align with GSA’s perspective and ideas is essential. The approach used for single-use plastics successfully sparked initiatives within GSA, and a similar approach is being considered for PFAS. They also consider other initiatives in the PFAS space, such as those by DOD, to ensure coordination.

Richard shared that initially, the group thought PFAS was a chemical formula applied to products and services across industries, and their approach was to identify the chemical formulation and seek to reduce its applicability. However, it’s much more complex than that due to the science, chemistry, and various uses of PFAS. They hope to find commonalities across industries, applications, and products, but it needs to be clarified whether PFAS represents a single family of chemistry or multiple families and offshoots. The complexity is challenging to understand.

The group agreed that coming up with a draft recommendation before the November 9 meeting would be doable.

State best practices survey

Luke mentioned that they have engaged with state entities and industry representatives, generating concepts and observations they’d like to put before GSA for their input. The goal for December 5 is to present these ideas to GSA. They are looking for GSA feedback on whether they want to explore these concepts further and if they require recommendations. The first concept is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Nicole explained to the group that this concept means that if a company produces a product, they are responsible for it throughout its lifecycle. They don’t pass that responsibility to the consumer. If their product involves toxic chemicals or has significant environmental impacts, they are accountable for managing it.

Luke heard from an organization that is an advocate for this. Different states have various legislative efforts and categories they address under EPR. EPR can incentivize manufacturers to create products with fewer costs, less waste, and fewer toxic components since they must shoulder the disposal costs. While EPR is typically handled at the state level, it was raised as a potential concept for consideration by the GSA. The idea was to explore the utility of including this concept in the recommendations, considering the potential issues and benefits it might entail. Luke wanted the group’s opinion on whether this concept should be mentioned and potentially formed into a recommendation later.

After much discussion, the group agreed that it would be a great concept to review. However, the practicality of implementing it would be an issue and something to look into further to incentivize companies as a solution. Luke moved to the next concept, which was the centralization of the asset reduction/reuse/recycle program. The idea was to ensure that assets are not wasted and every potential use is extracted from them. It was noted that the GSA already has a program in place, the personal property management system, that aligns with this concept and serves the intended purpose, potentially rendering this concept unusable for the subcommittee. Boris confirmed that GSA has a mature and well-managed excess property program that is doing an excellent job, and they are taking a lead role, benefitting other agencies. Luke mentioned rebranding the internal system to reflect its role in fostering organizational sustainability.

Nicole raised the question of whether the GSA sees opportunities on the horizon that are yet unrealized. Luke acknowledged that he had yet to engage with GSA about this and suggested a conversation with the people behind the program. Luke moved to the third concept, mandatory/minimum threshold specifications for Green Products. Several states mentioned this concept including New York, Minnesota, and Massachusetts. These states have their green specifications listed on their websites, and in some cases, they refer to eco-labels or third-party certifications for certain categories. Luke expressed concern about the discrepancies in green specifications between different states and the GSA, suggesting the need for a standardized approach. He wondered if the GSA could play a role in setting such standards, which could provide a model for states to follow. The group discussed whether GSA has a role in this area and sought feedback on this concept.

Nicole mentioned parallel conversations in the Acquisition Workforce Subcommittee, focusing on data standardization. She shared that many agencies are wrestling with inefficiencies created by their efforts to collect good data. Vendors have also expressed the need to centralize their data. The core of Luke’s question regarding centralization involves exploring spillover benefits that could be gained more broadly. Nicole  highlighted the need to identify a convener or a leading entity that can advance this effort.

Boris agreed that the data recommendation work will be a start at taking a stab at this.

Luke moved to the fourth concept, vendor affirmation as to their past practices (and their supply chains). While there is no precedent for this, he mentioned that a law is being considered in New York requiring companies to contract with the state to affirm that they do not contribute to tropical or boreal intact forest degradation or deforestation through their supply chains. He pointed out that similar affirmations are already common in contracts, such as affirming that a company has not been indicted or convicted or has not engaged in lobbying. Luke proposed that GSA could explore creating a similar tool for affirming responsible behavior and practices, potentially including issues like deforestation. He asked if the GSA already has tools or affirmations for evaluating potential vendors.

Stephanie pointed out that GSA already includes various affirmation clauses/provisions, related to integrity, lobbying, and other factors in their solicitations.

Luke noted that what interests him is the leap from standard integrity affirmations to ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance)-related criteria, which has yet to be widely explored. The group agreed to keep the concept for further discussion before moving to the fifth concept.

The fifth concept is capacity building/technical assistance to help MWSDBEs meet green requirements. Luke emphasized the importance of not creating barriers to entry for these contractors and how providing them with the necessary knowledge and resources is vital. He mentioned an example where a municipality started requiring certain environmental standards like LEED and they implemented a training program to educate their vendor community about the requirements. Luke sees this as a recurring theme that must be addressed throughout the committee’s work, even if it’s not a specific recommendation.

Boris Arratia discussed how this topic had been raised in Industry Partnerships and mentioned the need for caution to avoid creating obstacles for small businesses.

Nicole Darnall brought up EPA’s work on technical assistance and P2 (pollution prevention) grants as a model, suggesting that GSA could explore similar mechanisms to curate knowledge and support small vendors and industry. Stephanie Hardison mentioned the Association of Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (APTAC) and its role in helping small businesses, while Boris also noted the role of the Small Business Administration (SBA). The group discussed the need to further explore these resources and how they intersect with sustainability and procurement. There’s a need for knowledge transfer and a potential need for mechanisms within GSA for curating knowledge.

Luke moved into the sixth concept which is the idea of a self-certification program that allows firms to label their goods or services as green, similar to what Rhode Island’s Department of Environmental Management does. Firms would fill out an application and meet certain criteria to use green labels to market themselves to consumers.

However, Luke noted that this concept is primarily for consumer marketing and doesn’t offer a clear contractual or procurement advantage.

He then suggested the possibility of firms labeling themselves as green in different categories and potentially receiving benefits in federal contracting. While acknowledging that this idea might be unconventional, he wanted to present it to the group for consideration.

The group discussed the potential of a self-certification program for firms, with the idea of applying it to federal contracting. Nicole expressed concern about the proliferation of competing green labels and the need to aim for a third-party certified standard as the gold standard. Boris mentioned GSA’s ongoing work, including GSA Advantage and green product compilation.

The group also touched on removing the self-verification clause and empirical studies on the robustness of labels. Ultimately, it was decided that this concept should be removed from the list.

The seventh concept for discussion was establishing a framework for evaluating firms, particularly concerning their sustainability practices. Luke emphasized the need for a standardized framework to evaluate vendors and their performance compared to a baseline. Massachusetts was an example of a state that was piloting a questionnaire to assess vendors’ green practices, policies, and capabilities.

Nicole mentioned the use of vendor scorecards or supplier scorecards by various local and state governments and highlighted the need for transparency and shared learning in this regard. GSA could play a pivotal role in developing a standardized vendor scorecard system. Nicole also referred to her previous research on vendor scorecards for local governments.

Luke expressed interest in turning this concept into a recommendation, and the idea was supported. Boris also shared insights on how GSA explored sustainability criteria in source selection. The discussion underscored the potential for GSA to create a standard framework for evaluating vendors’ sustainability practices and providing clear expectations to the vendor community.

The eighth concept for discussion revolved around creating a framework for public reporting that makes a case for green procurement and action. The Minnesota sustainability website provides detailed information on cost avoidance and CO2 emissions, breaking down goals and tracking progress. Their efforts are commended as a persuasive case for taking action and achieving results.

Nicole discussed the importance of data and its role in implementing green procurement practices, emphasizing the need for proper training on the tools used to measure progress. She also noted the connection between this concept and the recommendation focused on training individuals to use tools effectively. Nicole offered to share more information on this topic with Luke for further discussion.

The last concept focused on creating an Office of Enterprise Sustainability. Minnesota’s success with its Office of Enterprise Sustainability was highlighted as a model for dedicated teams to manage sustainability initiatives.

Jennie Romer pointed out the role of the CEQ’s Federal sustainability officer and the need to define the scope of the GSA’s role. Nicole discussed the importance of having a centralized hub for setting goals and strategies, emphasizing the need for an office that reports to top leadership to shift the culture effectively.

The conversation concluded with Luke looking forward to more discussions, engagement with other states, and refining the existing recommendations for sharing a report with GSA. The administrative meeting on November 9th was mentioned as the next milestone for the group.

Toxicity Task Group

Task group members Anish Tilak and Kimberly Wise White could not attend the meeting. However Boris shared a glimpse of what the task group has been doing. He mentioned that Kimberly and Anish have made significant progress. They have been working together and meeting with experts from the Public Building Service and Federal Acquisition Service (FAS). The group aims to avoid overlapping with the EPA’s guidelines regarding toxicity while identifying areas where GSA can provide valuable insights and recommendations. The group is moving forward effectively, and Kimberly and Anish have been in discussions with GSA experts.

Public comments

Cassius Butts expressed his gratitude to the committee for their detailed work and commended their efforts. He mentioned that Troy had to leave for another meeting but also conveyed her regards and appreciation for the work done.

Closing remarks

Luke thanked the subcommittee for their participation before turning it over to Boris.

Adjournment

Boris Arratia adjourned the meeting at 5:00 PM EST.

Digitally signed by Luke Bassis 9/17/2024 
Luke Bassis 
Chairperson 
GAP FAC Policy & Practice Subcommittee