HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy CommentsItem 5
ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING POLICY SAB COMMENTS
Steve Barney:
Here are my comments, in the form of proposed amendments, on the draft
Environmentally Responsible Purchasing Policy.
Changes to original text are highlighted by strikeout lines (deletions) or underlining
(additions).
mQ:L'1aff -AT1 it• GirrsmE
Whereas, the Sustainability Advisory Board encourages the municipal government of
the City of Oshkosh to incorporate the life cycle costs in its cost /benefit analysis to get a
more accurate portrayal of the true costs of the goods and services.
Be It Resolved, the Sustainability Advisory Board recommends that this line in the draft
"Environmentally Responsible Purchasing Policy" (4 -8 -11) be amended as follows:
The City of Oshkosh will purchase environmentally responsible products based on a
total life cycle cost analysis as long as they meet performance needs and are fiscally
responsible (consistent with a price variance up to and including 5% about the lowest
responsible bid based on the life cycle cost, for a particular product).
- -DRAFT Amendment 2 --
Whereas, the Sustainability Advisory Board encourages the municipal government of
the City of Oshkosh to incorporate the life cycle costs in its cost /benefit analysis to get a
more accurate portrayal of the true costs of the goods and services.
Be It Resolved, the Sustainability Advisory Board recommends that this line in the draft
"Environmentally Responsible Purchasing Policy" (4 -8 -11) be amended as follows:
The City of Oshkosh will purchase environmentally responsible products as long as
they meet performance needs and are fiscally responsible �, and consistent with a
price variance up to and including 5 % about the lowest responsible bid for a particular
product). The price should incorporate the life cycle costs in the cost /benefit or pricing
analysis to get a more accurate portrayal of the true costs of the goods and services.
- -DRAFT Amendment 3 --
Pr^ including all quantifiable costs of ownership, such as acquisition, energy,
disposal, materials, maintenance, and operation. City staff should make a genuine good
faith effort to determine these costs. For example, vehicle purchase decisions would
include estimated fuel costs.
- -DRAFT Amendment 4 --
Life Cycle Cost — The total noct of ownership; the total noct of aGq iirino onoratino
r mointainino s ppertino and (if applinohle) disposing of an item.amortized annual cost of
a product, including capital costs, installation costs, operating costs, maintenance costs,
and disposal costs discounted over the lifetime of the aroduct.
FYI, this White House press release about the new "National Strategy for Electronics
Stewardship," and its included links, may be useful to you as it relates to a green
purchasing policy:
"Obama Administration Officials and Industry Leaders Unveil Federal Strategy to
Promote U.S. -Based Electronics Recycling Market and Jobs"
July 20, 2011
http: / /www.whitehouse.gov /administration /eo /p ce /Press Releases /July 20 2011
Purchasing & Procurement : ENERGY STAR
http://www.energystar.gov/purchasing
Among other things, you will find life cycle cost calculators there (see step 4).
Kim Biedermann
I just read the purchasing policy and my only suggestion echoes Jan's suggestion that
we add purchasing locally procured products to the list. I really do think this policy is
quite broad -based and avoids anything too specific (which I think is actually good in a
case like this).
Jan Scalpone
I would suggest we add the following to the list under "will recommend purchasing
decisions that favor..."
Products that are produced or sold locally (to reduce impacts of transporting)
Definition of Local - Within the Fox Valley region
Justin Mitchell
Overall the plan that you assembled has received very positive feedback with minimal
cited concerns. Well done!
5% max, without consideration of the life cycle analysis? This needs to give added
weight to payback period for things like energy savings, etc, but does not currently.
No real analysis re. smaller purchases such as light bulbs, etc. There should be
language included that for purchases under the $25000 that don't have the life cycle
analysis, purchasing weight can be given with supporting documentation (ex CFL saves
money but costs much more).
In addition, Sustainability Consultant Lisa MacKinnon made some additional comments:
First, I agree with Justin's comments in his email.
Second, I think they have done a good job with this policy and have hit on the major
issues. There are always tweaks that can be done to strengthen the language and
intent of a policy, but the important thing is that they have stated their intent to purchase
more environmentally preferable products for the city and to send a signal to suppliers
(and hopefully also residents) about that priority by forwarding this new policy to all
current suppliers and, I assume, supplying it to new ones that come on board. I'd also
recommend they make it available to residents by posting it on the website as they said
they would, but also by considering publicizing it further at relevant venues - -local stores
near relevant products, at events, etc.) and consider a similar "guide" for residents (cf.
Whistler's guides for residents) so that they can get a reach within the community.
Here are a few suggestions I had upon reading through it:
P. 1:
- bullet point list: I recommend making "Products that reduce GHG emissions" a
separate stand -alone bullet and making "products made with renewable energy" a
separate bullet, too [the reason for this is there could be some products that reduce ghg
emissions but that do so outside of the use of renewable energy and you don't want to
send a message that only RE products reduce ghgs or will be considered in the ghg
reduction discussion.]
last paragraph of p 1: 1 recommend adding "Nothing in this policy shall be construed
as requiring a purchaser to procure products that do not perform adequately for their
intended use when used as directed,..." [The reason for this is because some cleaning
products, for instance, require training of staff in using in slightly different ways in order
to be effective. We found this to be the case in Madison: staff needed to be trained in
the use of the new green cleaning products in order for them to have the expected
effect. E.g., some of the solutions required scrubbing or were required to be left on the
surface longer than the older, toxic cleaning products. Training in differences in use
ensures better results].
P. 2: Definitions:
- Environmentally Resp. Products: "Products that have a lesser or reduced effect on
human health and the environment when compared with competing products..." I would
consider "have a reduced effect or no negative impact (or effect) on" [Reason is
because what we are really shooting for with sustainability is eliminating contribution of
increasing concentrations of this stuff in the system and even a lesser effect, added up,
contributes to build -up in concentrations over time.]
- Fiscally responsible: I agree with Justin's take on this.There may be some cases
where the initial purchase outlay is above 5% but the savings over time is significant.
p. 3;
- Evaluating ERPs:
"Environmentally responsible products are those that have a reduced effect...." As with
the suggestion in the definition section above, I would consider saying "have a reduced
effect or no negative impact (or effect) on" [Reason is because what we are really
shooting for with sustainability is eliminating contribution of increasing concentrations of
this stuff in the system and even a lesser effect, added up, contributes to build -up in
concentrations over time.1
- "Responsibilities of Departments" and "Resp. of Purchasing Division" sections: Great
points on developing more up to date specs that eliminate barriers to better ERP and
also good points re: communication re: availability of surplus supplies and program
evaluation.
In all, looks good. Those are all the substantive comments I had. Here are a few
comments on resources:
In addition to the purchasing resources and links that we included in the UWEX
Sustainable Communities toolkit, I would recommend they look at Whistler
Municipality's purchasing policy and their purchasing guides.
http: / /www.whistler202O.ca /whistler/ site /genericPage.acds ?context= 1967998 &instancei
d= 1967999
Finally, it looks like the drafters already have EPA's guidelines, but they might also want
to check out this clearinghouse list for other resources that could be helpful as they
move forward with this. It's Greening Greater Toronto's "Procurement Document Hub ".
They have done a lot of thinking and action in Toronto around this , waste reduction,
etc.,and a lot of their resources are listed here (they are not just Canadian resources,
either). http: / /www.greeninggreatertoronto.ca /initiatives /documenthub.asp