![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)
Basic Information
Funding Opportunity Name: Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA): 66.717
Announcement Type: Initial solicitation dated June 7, 2005
Deadline for Submission of Proposals: Proposals must be received by July 29, 2005
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. Is eligibility limited to organizations in EPA Region 9?
A. No
Q2. Will the recipient of this grant be the "Host Organization" as described in www.epeat.net, FAQ #17? Or, will grantee implement and pilot and then hand-off to "Host Organization?"
A. The grant recipient is expected to be the Host Organization.
Q3. If recipient is "Host Organization," will it be allowable or expected that the Host will charge manufacturers a fee for product registration, verification, etc., in the interest of eventually becoming a self-sustaining enterprise?
A. Yes, this is allowable and expected. Applicants should indicate in both the Implementation Plan and the Budget how they intend to raise revenue for the long-term implementation of EPEAT. Sources could include (but are not limited to) fees for manufacturers to register EPEAT products, additional value-added services, private foundation funding, etc.
Q4. Is the matching requirement 5% of requested funds, or 5% of total project costs? Are cash contributions preferred over in-kind resources?
A. It is 5% of federal funds requested. There is no preference for cash over in-kind resources
Q5. Several of the documents referenced in the RFIP were not available on the listed website.
A. Below is the status of all of the documents, with specific links to the documents that are available.
- Description of how EPEAT will work
- EPEAT Frequently Asked Questions
- EPEAT Development Team final report: not yet available
- Specifications of the web-based product registration system (PDF 22 pages, 417 K)
- Project description of the environmental benefits calculator (scroll down to bottom of first page to section “Measuring the Results”)
- EPEAT's environmental criteria
Q6. The RFIP is a "cooperative agreement", which implies that EPA intends to have "substantial involvement" in EPEAT. Can you elaborate on EPA's planned participation beyond the information in the second paragraph of Section II of the RFIP?
A. EPA’s participation will depend, in part, on how the selected Host Organization proposes to govern and manage the project. We anticipate that EPA will participate in any kind of stakeholder advisory panel that the Host Organization convenes to help guide the project. In addition, EPA will likely be involved in major decisions made by the Host Organization, including, but not limited to, selecting key contractors, defining the role and selection of advisory board members, and soliciting and acting on stakeholder input. As with all grant agreements, EPA will also conduct oversight of grant progress and project finances.
Q7. Does EPA plan to allocate staff to support EPEAT? If so, how many FTE in what role(s), for how long? What would be their relationship to the Host Organization? Who works for whom? As a data point, I believe Energy Star employs around 70 government employees and a roughly equal number of contractors (but, of course, it only covers one aspect of environmental impact). Is that any guide to the government staffing to be allocated to EPEAT?
A. EPA will provide limited staff support to EPEAT implementation. We cannot make specific FTE commitments at this time, but it will likely be between 0.5 - 1.0 FTE, with greater participation in the early phases of the project. The Host Organization is expected to design, direct and staff the project. In addition to carrying out required grant oversight, EPA staff will work as a partner with the Host Organization in making the project a success.
Q8. On page 4 the RFIP reads "The EPEAT system includes the following elements, which will be provided to the selected organization after grant award: ... a system for verifying that products meet the stated claims". I understood that it was the Host Organization's role to develop and fund the spot check system. Please clarify what will be provided to the host org, and what the Host Organization's role is in verifying claims.
A. It is the Host Organization’s role to develop and fund the verification system, including launching and maintaining the web-based tool for product registration, developing the procedures for spot checking product claims, and enlisting technical advice where needed. The EPEAT Implementation Team will provide the Host Organization with all background material developed by the project to date, including guidance on conducting the verification process. In addition, the Host Organization will be given the prototype web-based tool for product registration currently under development. (See the project technical proposal (PDF 22 pages, 417 K) for a complete description of the tool.)
Q9. How many products are going to be in the database based on EPA assumptions?
A. At this point, we have not made specific assumptions regarding the number of products. For estimating purposes, we suggest applicants assume 4 manufacturers will submit a total of 20 products in the first year, and assume a relatively modest level of growth in future years.
Q10. What percentage of the products will go through validation testing?
A. The Development Team recommended that the first 3-5 products submitted by each manufacturer receive a desk review (i.e., close review of the application to ensure the forms were filled out properly) just to ensure that the manufacturers and the Host Organization find and fix any potential problems in the registration process. Beyond that, the Development Team suggested a range of about 3-6% of all products go through the verification process, with a minimum of five products per year. This would involve asking manufacturers to submit the required verification documentation, and subjecting that information to a review by an independent technical committee.
Q11. Is EPA supporting a particular testing methodology?
A. EPA is not supporting specific testing methodology, nor does it anticipate the Host Organization to conduct significant product testing. Manufacturers are expected to self-declare their adherence to the standard, and maintain specific documentation to verify product comformance. Testing would only be necessary if the Host Organization or their technical advisors deemed that a manufacturer’s documentation did not adequately demonstrate how the standard was met.
Q12. What is the tolerance level if results do not match?
A. See above.
Q13. If validation testing shows negative trends, will the percentage of products going through testing increase? Vice versa? Who will make that decision, how frequently?
A. As stated in Question 11 above, we don’t anticipate significant testing to be required. The Development Team made no specific recommendations regarding how to adjust the verification process based on the results of product reviews. The decision would have to be made by the Host Organization, with input from stakeholders. The Host Organization is responsible for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the verification process.
Q14. Who makes the decision for environmental criteria, if multiple stakeholders with multiple perspectives are at the table, would majority rule apply or does EPA review competing recommendations and endorse one?
A. Future environmental criteria would most likely be developed as amendments to the ANSI-certified standard currently being developed. The Host Organization would likely be involved in future standard setting, but the decision-making process would be determined by the policies and procedures of the sponsoring standard setting body, in compliance with ANSI essential requirements.
Q15. How closely will the selected standards development organization work with the EPEAT Development Team?
A. This RFIP does not address the selection of the standards development organization. The EPEAT Implementation Team elected to finalize the EPEAT criteria through the IEEE Standards Association, and is serving as the core of the standard setting workgroup within that organization. We anticipate that the Host Organization will be very involved in future standard setting processes (e.g. amendments to or expansion of the current standard), potentially even serving as the key convenor of the stakeholders to develop future iterations.
Q16. How would the access be provided to previous work, how available are the members of the EPEAT Development Team, for how long?
A. EPA and the Zero Waste Alliance are committed to providing the Host Organization all materials, information, and wisdom gained from the Development Team process. Zero Waste Alliance will be available at least through the first quarter of 2006. The Implementation Team (a smaller subset of the Development Team) will also be available for consultation during the transition to full implementation. The Host Organization will be expected to continue to convene relevant stakeholders as the project unfolds. While we cannot make commitments for the Development Team members, it is likely that many of the members will continue to stay involved with the project, especially when the standards are updated or expanded.
Q17. Under ranking scores, ability to secure federal on non-federal funding sources is listed. Is EPA providing information on potential sources?
A. We have not developed specific sources for funding. However, once a Host Organization is selected we will work closely with them to identify additional funding sources.
Q18. Due to multiple stakeholders involved and in order to maintain the project timeline, will delays by stakeholders be escalated to EPA and resolved by EPA?
A. The project timeline will be established by the Host Organization, and it will be responsible for managing to that timeline. If delays occur, EPA will work the grantee to modify the project workplan and timeline. EPA will not serve as the final arbiter in the event of disagreements among stakeholders, but will work with the Host Organization to facilitate resolution of any problems.
Q19. Will the finalized EPEAT criteria be published as an EPA standard following ANSI principles for standards development or as a U.S. National Standard through the standards development organization's ANSI standards development process?
A. The criteria will be finalized as an American National Standard through the IEEE Standards Association, which is an ANSI certified standards development organization. We expect a draft of the standard to be available on the EPEAT web site on or around July 8, 2005 .
Q20. Will the program manager be fully responsible for sampling and testing of the listed products to ensure accuracy of the self-declaration?
A. As stated in Question 11 above, we do not anticipate the Host Organization will conduct significant testing. The verification system proposed by the Development Team relies on reviewing documentation that demonstrates products meet the standard. The Host Organization will be responsible for implementing and ensuring the credibility of that verification system. If it finds that the proposed verification approach is not adequate, the Host Organization – working with stakeholders – could modify it to better meet the needs of stakeholders.
Q21. Can the testing of listed products be completed outside the United States?
A. If such testing is required, yes.
Q22. Will there be a surveillance program of manufacturing facilities to verify mandatory EPEAT criteria such as management systems?
A. The Development Team recommended no specific surveillance system other than having the manufacturer supply documentation providing that its facilities have a management system. The Host Organization may choose to modify the suggested verification approach if needed.
Q23. What are the EPA timelines for outputs and outcomes after award is made October 2005?
A. That would be up to the Host Organization. Ideally we would like to see a few products go through the process by early 2006, in order to test the whole system. But the timeline will depend on the ability of the Host Organization to complete any start up activities (e.g. securing staff, space, equipment, etc.), establish stakeholder relationships and governance structures, and transfer all relevant materials and information from the Implementation Team.
Q24. Will the finalized EPEAT standard be available for sale to users?
A. Yes. We expect the Host Organization to be able to negotiate with the standards organization to secure bulk purchase discounts in order to supply the standard to purchasers at little or no cost. However, manufacturers and their suppliers will have to buy the standard.
Q25. What are the responsibilities of the program administrator if EPA funding is discontinued for Phase 2?
A. The Host Organization, in conjunction with stakeholders, will have to decide whether the project continues to be viable without federal funding. Should EPA not fund the project in the future, the Host Organization will only be responsible for deliverables achieved with the EPA funding provided.
Q26. How will the program be sustained after the 3-year program duration funded by the EPA?
A. The future sustainability of the project is up to the Host Organization. One of the evaluation factors for this grant is whether the applicant includes a reasonable business plan to sustain the project without federal funding in the future. EPA has no preconceptions about how that would be achieved.
Q27. Who manages the infrastructure, software, database etc. to have the customer test data available?
A. The Host Organization would manage all of the those functions. It can partner or contract with other organizations to provide those services, if desired. Any subgrants or subcontracts must meet federal requirements for competitive procurement (see the references on page 8 of the solicitation).
Q28. The RFIP says, on page 6, that an expected outcome is a "functioning web based tool." On page 5, RFIP states that an "easy to use web based interface system..." will be provided to selected organization. Understanding that the tool to be provided is still under development by MARCEE, how do you see the tool delivered under this RFIP different from the output of the MARCEE effort?
A. The overall goal is to have a functioning, easy-to-use web-based system for both registering and getting information on EPEAT products. The output from the MARCEE effort will be delivered to the Host Organization, with the expectation that it will serve as the EPEAT web application. Due to grant restrictions, we cannot require that an applicant use the MARCEE system, and applicants can propose developing a new system or using an existing web tool. However, several of the review criteria consider how well the applicant uses what has been previously developed, and evaluates the overall budget. Applicants will have to demonstrate clearly how using a system different from the MARCEE product better meets the goals of the program, and is more cost-effective.
Q29. Is there a way to preview the MARCEE system? If not, is there any information that EPA can share about it? Should we assume it will be a fully functioning tool when delivered to the grant recipient?
A. EPA and MARCEE will hold a web-enabled conference call to demonstrate the system on Thursday, July 7 at 4:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time ( 1:00 pm Pacific Daylight Time). Please contact John Katz (katz.john@epa.gov), to get details about the call.
Q30. Has EPEAT developed a label that will be placed on the product?
A. No. The Development Team specifically decided that the EPEAT system would not include a label. Since the target audience is institutional purchasers, the Development Team decided that a label was not necessary.