Final Report — Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study (Carbon Leadership Forum, November 2022)
Summary
Final report of the Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study, dated November 1, 2022, prepared by the Carbon Leadership Forum at the University of Washington with the Washington State Department of Commerce. It states that it was commissioned by the State of Washington 67th Legislature through operating and capital budget provisos. The report covers a prototype reporting database built with Meserow Design, stakeholder feedback, pilot projects, and recommendations for a future program. Its executive summary states that the pilot study started in June 2021 and ended in October 2022, and that the research team met with eight potential project teams and ended up with five participating project teams.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Final Report — Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study (Carbon Leadership Forum, November 2022).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2022-commercereports-buycleanbuyfair-53fdb528-dcef-4e4a-b074-b15f4a92b-ecbe993309/
, SHA-256 deaad10d51c73bddb9526705cacb104fe3f51c348328cfa0a9639d32ce0fa620.Full text
Buy Clean and Buy Fair
Washington Project
FINAL REPORT
A professional report commissioned by the State of Washington 67th Legislature
through operating and capital budget provisos
November 1, 2022
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
About the Carbon Leadership Forum
The Carbon Leadership Forum at the University of Washington. We are architects, engineers,
contractors, product suppliers, building owners, and policymakers who work collaboratively, pioneering
research, creating resources, and incubating member-led initiatives for the greatest collective impact.
Our goal is to accelerate the transformation of the building sector to radically reduce and ultimately
eliminate the embodied carbon in building materials and construction.
Authors
The individuals from the Carbon Leadership Forum at the University of Washington College of Built
Environments who worked on this report are:
● Meghan Lewis, Senior Researcher
● Monica Huang, Researcher
● Kate Simonen, Executive Director
● Martin Torres, Technical Consultant
The individuals from the Washington State Department of Commerce, Office of Efficiency and
Environmental Performance, Energy Division who worked on this report are:
● Hanna Waterstrat, Director
● Ian Kinder-Pyle, Policy Analyst
The individuals from Meserow Design who worked on this report are:
Patrick Escarcega, Chief Technology Officer
Ellen Escarcega, Chief Executive Officer
Author contributions: M.L. and K.S. led conceptualization; M.L., M.H., and M.T. conducted research and
analysis; M.L., M.H., P.E., and E.E. created the figures; M.L., M.H., M.T., H.W., P.E., and E.E. wrote the
report; M.H., H.W., I.K.P. and K.S. performed review and editing.
Competing interests statement
The Carbon Leadership Forum receives unrestricted gifts from sponsors, including manufacturers and
trade associations, which are listed here: https://carbonleadershipforum.org/our-sponsors/
Kate Simonen is on the board of directors of Building Transparency, a non-profit organization that
supports the Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator (EC3) tool, which includes a database of
environmental product declarations that is referenced in this report.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce i
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance in various aspects of this project:
● Washington State Department of Commerce
○ Liz Saylor, IT Policy and Planning Manager, OPS-Information Services
○ Austin Scharff, Energy Policy Specialist, Energy Division
○ Scott Varga, Visual Brand Manager, Director’s Office
○ Jasmine Vasavada, Government Affairs Director, Director’s Office
○ Huilin Wang, Applications Developer, OPS-Information Services
● University of Washington, College of Built Environments IT:
○ Eric Gould
○ Ross McKenzie
● Database consultants:
○ Erin Fahy
○ Michelle Hertzfeld
○ Jessica Schilling
○ Maryanne Wachter
○ Matt Zumwalt
● Carbon Leadership Forum:
○ Anthony Hickling
○ Megan Kalsman
○ Brook Waldman
● Building Transparency / C-Change Labs:
○ Phil Northcott
○ Stacy Smedley
● Blue Green Alliance
○ Jessica Koski
● Participants in the feedback survey (described in Section 3.2), who shall remain anonymous
● Pilot projects:
○ University of Washington (UW) Seattle - Interdisciplinary Engineering Building Project
■ Kabri Lehrman Schmid, Hensel Phelps
■ Morgan May, Hensel Phelps
■ Kate Czembor, Kieran Timberlake
■ Kit Elsworth, Kieran Timberlake
■ Billie Faircloth, Kieran Timberlake
■ David Feaster, Kieran Timberlake
■ Alex Olevitch, Kieran Timberlake
■ David Rariden, Kieran Timberlake
■ Jennifer Reynolds, UW
○ University of Washington Tacoma - Milgard Hall Project
■ Craig Holt, Andersen Construction
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce ii
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
■ Susan Bouthillette, Andersen Construction
■ Tyler Carlyle, Andersen Construction
■ Austen Kartic, Andersen Construction
■ Shannon Thompson, UW
○Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Olympic Region Maintenance
Administration Facility
■ Steve Holloway, WSDOT
■ Jim Rodgers, WSDOT
■ Eric Yates, WSDOT
○ Shoreline Community College - Allied Health, Science, and Manufacturing Replacement
■ Colin Bott, Washington State Department of Enterprise Services (DES)
■ Dino Monioudis, FORMA Construction
■ Ben Retzlaff, FORMA Construction
■ Zach Vance, FORMA Construction
○ Western Washington University (WWU) - Sciences Building Addition and Renovation
■ Mark Nicasio, WWU
● Meserow Design:
○ Biondi Lun
○ Michael Pogson
● Dave Walsh Consulting
○ Dave Walsh
● Magnusson Klemencic Associates
○ Don Davies
Cover image
The image on the cover of this report is from Pexels: https://www.pexels.com/photo/blue-sky-clouds-
construction-crane-259940/
Citation
Huang, M., Lewis, M., Escarcega, P., Escarcega, E., Torres, M., Waterstrat, H., Kinder-Pyle, I., Simonen, K.
(2022). Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project: Final Report. Carbon Leadership Forum and
Washington State Department of Commerce.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce iii
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Table of Contents
About the Carbon Leadership Forum ........................................................................................................ i
Authors....................................................................................................................................................... i
Competing interests statement ................................................................................................................. i
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................................... ii
Cover image ............................................................................................................................................. iii
Citation..................................................................................................................................................... iii
Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Data collection .............................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 3
2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 About the pilot study requirements ............................................................................................. 5
2.1.1 Legislative mandate .............................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Project execution .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Quarterly stakeholder update meetings....................................................................................... 8
3 Prototype database............................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Developing the initial data reporting structure ............................................................................ 9
3.1.1 The BCBF data collection process ....................................................................................... 11
3.1.2 Initial data reporting templates .......................................................................................... 12
3.2 Gathering stakeholder feedback................................................................................................. 13
3.2.1 Stakeholder feedback process ............................................................................................ 13
3.2.2 Stakeholder feedback summary ......................................................................................... 14
3.3 Creating the prototype database ................................................................................................ 15
3.3.1 Consulting database experts ............................................................................................... 15
3.3.2 Hiring a database consultant .............................................................................................. 15
3.3.3 Creating the database ......................................................................................................... 16
4 Pilot projects ....................................................................................................................................... 25
4.1 Data collection ............................................................................................................................ 27
4.1.1 UW IEB ................................................................................................................................ 28
4.1.2 UW Milgard Hall .................................................................................................................. 28
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce iv
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
4.1.3 WSDOT Fuel Island .............................................................................................................. 29
4.1.4 WSDOT Radio Tower ........................................................................................................... 29
4.1.5 Shoreline Community College Allied Health, Science, and Manufacturing ........................ 29
4.1.6 WWU Sciences Building Addition........................................................................................ 30
4.2 Feedback from contractors ......................................................................................................... 30
4.3 Feedback from suppliers ............................................................................................................. 32
5 Recommendations for a future BCBF program................................................................................... 33
5.1 Recommendations for program administration ......................................................................... 33
5.2 Recommendations for the database .......................................................................................... 34
5.3 Feedback on reporting requirements ......................................................................................... 35
6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix A: Reporting templates ............................................................................................................... 39
Appendix B: Stakeholder feedback ............................................................................................................. 46
Appendix B1: Stakeholder feedback process .......................................................................................... 46
List of stakeholders invited to complete feedback survey and attend feedback sessions ................. 46
Invitation email to stakeholders to participate in feedback process (Supplier version) .................... 48
Follow-up email to stakeholders to following (Supplier version) ....................................................... 49
Appendix B2: Stakeholder feedback surveys .......................................................................................... 51
Feedback Survey for Contractor Reporting Form ............................................................................... 51
Feedback Survey for Supplier Reporting Form ................................................................................... 53
Appendix B3: Stakeholder feedback summary ....................................................................................... 55
Contractor Debrief Survey Results .......................................................................................................... 57
Supplier Debrief Survey Results .............................................................................................................. 59
Appendix D: Legislative mandates .............................................................................................................. 62
Section 128 (68) of the 2021-23 biennial operating budget (ESSB 5092)............................................... 62
Section 1050, Chapter 332, Laws of 2021 (the 2021-23 capital budget)................................................ 63
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce v
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Executive summary
The Buy Clean Buy Fair (BCBF) Washington Project is a pilot study commissioned by the Washington
State Legislature in 2021. This project requires the University of Washington (UW) College of Built
Environments to develop a reporting database to collect environmental and labor information from
state construction projects and conduct a case study using pilot projects. This pilot study provided the
opportunity to explore the process of setting up and running a potential BCBF reporting program by
developing a prototype reporting database and working with pilot project teams to test the
implementation of BCBF reporting. This pilot study started in June 2021 and ended in October 2022. This
report fulfills the requirements of section 128 (68) of the 2021-23 biennial operating budget (ESSB 5092)
and section 1050, Chapter 332, Laws of 2021 (the 2021-23 capital budget).
“Embodied carbon” refers to the greenhouse gas emissions arising from the manufacturing,
transportation, installation, maintenance, and disposal of building materials. A product’s supply chain
generates the majority of its carbon footprint and current climate policy efforts do not address these
emissions, creating a ‘carbon loophole.’ Embodied carbon is a significant percentage of global emissions
and requires urgent action to address it. Public agencies were responsible for 32% of the embodied
carbon of construction in the U.S. from 2008-2018.1 Washington state government can lead by example
and leverage its purchasing power to reduce embodied carbon in the built environment, which begins
with tracking and understanding the full range of embodied carbon in construction materials through
environmental product declarations. By coupling Buy Clean requirements with Buy Fair requirements,
Washington can also grow its economic competitiveness and support good working conditions at
manufacturing facilities. The database supported reporting by providing a platform to consolidate data
that can provide insight on state agency procurement of building materials.
“Buy Clean” is a policy approach that incorporates low carbon construction purchasing requirements
into government procurement. Procurement policies are becoming more common in the United States
as more policies are introduced at the state and federal levels. Buy Clean-type policies, such as the one
piloted in this project, have significant potential to reduce embodied carbon in state construction. The
“Buy Fair” component of includes additional requirements for reporting on working conditions to
promote high labor standards in manufacturing.
The Buy Clean and Buy Fair bill, which will be proposed for consideration during the 2022-23 legislative
session, is a first step to address embodied carbon in state building construction projects. Policies like
Buy Clean and Buy Fair, which promote procurement of building materials with lower embodied
emissions, are a key strategic lever to close the carbon loophole by accounting for a product’s emissions
throughout its supply chain. With the insight gained during this pilot project, Commerce is positioned
well to implement Buy Clean and Buy Fair policy. Should BCBF pass, Commerce will incorporate
1
U.S. Census Bureau Annual Value of Construction Spending Put in Place for 2008-2018; U.S. EPA (USEEIO v1.1)
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 1
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
recommendations from the pilot and develop a BCBF program that encourages broader adoption of
EPDs, supports project teams with reporting requirements, tracks procurement data for concrete, wood,
and steel used in state building projects, and convenes stakeholders to explore opportunities to
strengthen market demand and supply of low carbon building materials.
1.1 Data collection
Data was provided by contractors and product suppliers, which ultimately informed the pilot BCBF
database. To develop the reporting database, the research team first proposed a data reporting
structure covering all of the reporting requirements and additional useful project information. The
research team next presented the data reporting structure to stakeholders and incorporated their
feedback to improve the data reporting structure. Then, the research team used UW’s public
procurement process to hire a database developer, Meserow Design, to create the prototype database.
Meserow also connected the BCBF database with the EC3 tool,2 brainstormed future database needs,
and transferred the database and accompanying documentation to the Department of Commerce at the
end of the pilot study.
For the pilot project case studies, the research team met with eight potential project teams and ended
up with five participating project teams. The research team sent the data reporting templates to the
project teams and communicated with them throughout the study. At the end of the study, the research
team asked the pilot project teams to submit the data reporting spreadsheets and supply chain-specific
environmental product declarations (EPDs) for their project.
EPDs are a commonly used tool in the construction industry to measure the embodied carbon of a
building product. EPDs provide environmental data based on a third party-verified life cycle assessment,
and report a variety of life cycle impacts including global warming potential. Supply-chain specific EPDs
are favored by many Buy Clean policies because they contain primary data from the actual
manufacturing facilities and processes used in a specific supply chain, which makes them more
representative of the actual product. EPDs can also be industry-wide with product average data, or
manufacturer-specific with data from similar products made by the same company.
The submission of the pilot project materials was somewhat incomplete. The submitted EPDs were
manufacturer-specific, not supply chain-specific. As a result, they lacked the necessary level of data
specificity to be supply chain-specific. Material quantities submissions were not always complete
because the project had not completed construction or because the contractor was unresponsive to the
data request.
2
EC3 (Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator) is a cloud-based database of digitized Environmental Product
Declarations (EPDs) maintained by Building Transparency. https://buildingtransparency.org/
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 2
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
1.2 Recommendations
At the end of the pilot study, the research team asked project teams about obstacles or challenges they
faced, and what could have helped them successfully submit the data. After debrief interviews with the
pilot project teams, the research team condensed the lessons learned into the following
recommendations for the state, should the program extend beyond the pilot:
Provide model specifications so owners can use a reliable and consistent set of contract
requirements and instructions to set reporting requirements. This will assist contractors in
becoming accustomed to these requirements as they become more widespread in the industry.
The model specifications should include:
o A recommended timeline for when the contractors should start reaching out to
suppliers and initiating the EPD requisition process. For example, project teams should
involve/inform suppliers about the reporting requirements as soon as possible, during
preconstruction or design development.
Provide financial assistance for EPD creation. There is usually a high upfront cost for a
manufacturing plant to produce its first EPD. This can be a significant burden, especially for
smaller companies. However, the cost of producing subsequent EPDs are lower, as are the
annual fees following the initial registration fee are lower.3
Provide educational resources for owners, contractors, and suppliers on how to navigate the
BCBF requirements.
Provide a list of pre-qualified consultants who can create EPDs. For example, the Energy Savings
Performance Contracting (ESPC) program by the Washington State Department of Enterprise
Services (DES) provides pre-qualified consultants who can complete building energy upgrades
and retrofit projects for public agencies. Utilizing a similar model would help manufacturers
identify qualified consultants to help them create EPDs.
Have a dedicated staff person for the BCBF Program to answer questions and facilitate it.
Work with industry groups to conduct outreach to educate contractors and owners on the
reporting program. For example, owners should include the BCBF reporting requirements in the
bid documents so contractors can prepare and protect themselves from unexpected costs.
Some of the recommendations mentioned above were incorporated with Buy Clean and Buy Fair policy
Commerce plans to introduce as agency request legislation in the 2022-23 legislative session. This will
help the state build on these efforts, factor in learnings from other states with Buy Clean and Buy Fair
initiatives, and allow state building construction projects to lead by example. These are referenced in
Section 5 of this report.
For future BCBF reporting, the prototype database created for this pilot study needs the following
additional work to be suitable for long-term use as a production-level database application:
3
https://www.environdec.com/pricing/pricing2022
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 3
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Improve the administration dashboard to provide additional metrics on the collection of
sustainable construction data and allow administrators to better track submission status and
completeness.
Add more analytics, reports, charting, and dashboards as future needs around reporting
requirements become clearer.
Develop a business continuity plan and retention policy.
Create a public-facing website displaying global warming potential and other clear metrics, with
a feature to allow people to download the database data as a comma-separated values (CSV)
file.
Pursue deeper integration with the EC3 database to include bidirectional communication.
Provide better support for managing EPD files and EPD data, including robust document
management options and tighter integration with EC3.
Expand user management to include self-service and integration of administration tools.
Convert the database to a production environment with developer and test environments.
Create administrator tooling to allow users to manage questions and answers as information,
analytics, and construction practices continue to evolve. Feedback from the prototype will
inform the direction of future efforts.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 4
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
2 Introduction
In January 2021, members of the Washington State House of Representatives passed operating and
capital budget provisos that allocated a total of $490,000 of the state budget for the University of
Washington (UW) College of Built Environments to develop a database to collect the information
required and coordinate with up to 10 pilot projects teams to test the reporting requirements. This
project is referred to herein as the “Buy Clean and Buy Fair Washington Project.”
2.1 About the pilot study requirements
2.1.1 Legislative mandate
Two budget provisos defined the requirements of this project. Their full text is in Appendix D. The first
proviso was from Section 128 (68) of the 2021-23 biennial operating budget (ESSB 5092), which
appropriated $340,000 of the general fund for the Washington State Department of Commerce to:
...contract with the University of Washington College of Built Environments to create a database
and reporting system for promoting transparency on procurement of building materials that
make up the primary structure and enclosure used for state-funded construction projects.
The proviso also required a case study analysis:
In conducting the analysis, the department and the university must identify up to 10 case
studies of publicly funded projects and analyze considerations including but not limited to cost
impacts, materials procured, embodied carbon contribution to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, and supply chain considerations.
Finally, the operating budget proviso required the submission of two reports to the Legislature:
(1) a progress report by January 1, 2022, and
(2) a final report by November 1, 2022, which should report “findings from the case study analysis
and recommendations for the reporting system based on lessons learned.”
The second budget proviso was from Section 1050, Chapter 332, Laws of 2021 (the 2021-23 capital
budget), which appropriated $150,000 from the State Building Construction account for a case study on
two pilot projects:
(a) University of Washington College of Engineering Interdisciplinary Education and Research
Center (30000492); and
(b) University of Washington Tacoma Milgard Hall (20102002)
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 5
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
The purpose of the case study was to “test proposed methods and availability of environmental product
declarations and working condition information.” The following information had to be collected for at
least 90% of the cost of each covered product used in a project:
(a) Product quantity
(b) Current environmental product declaration
(c) Health certifications, if any, completed for the product
(d) Manufacturer name and location, including state or province and country
(e) Measures taken, if any, to promote the international labor organization's four fundamental
principles and rights at work within the manufacturer supply chain
(f) Names and locations, including state or province and country, of the actual production facilities
(g) Working condition information for the actual production facilities for all employees
The capital budget proviso also defined the following:
(a) "Actual production facilities" means the final manufacturing facility and the facilities at which
production processes occur that contribute to 80% or more of the product's cradle-to-gate
global warming potential, as reflected in the environmental product declaration.
(b) "Awarding authority" means the University of Washington capital planning and portfolio
management.
(c) "Covered product" means structural concrete products, reinforcing steel products, structural
steel products, and engineered wood products.
(d) "Environmental product declaration" means a supply chain-specific type III environmental
product declaration as defined by the international organization for standardization standard
14025 or similarly robust life cycle assessment methods with uniform standards in data
collection consistent with the international organization for standardization standard 14025,
industry acceptance, and integrity.
(e) "Health certification" means a health product declaration, as reported in accordance with the
health product declaration open standard, and any product certification that includes health-
related criteria.
(f) "International labor organization's four fundamental principles and rights at work" means:
Effective abolition of child labor; elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and
occupation; elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor; and freedom of association
and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.
(g) "Working condition information" means the:
(i) Average number of employees by employment type: Full time, part time, and temporary
(ii) Average hourly wage, including all nondiscretionary wages and bonuses, by quartiles
(iii) Hours worked by weekly hour bands: 1-19 hours, 20-29 hours, 30-39 hours, 40-49 hours,
50-59 hours, and 60 or more hours
(iv) Maximum number of hours that an employee can be required to work per week
(v) Percent of employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 6
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Note that environmental product declarations (EPDs) had to be supply chain-specific. Supply chain-
specific data refers to the use of primary, rather than secondary, data for upstream manufacturing or
production processes. In the case of a concrete EPD, for example, supply chain-specific data would entail
using a cement EPD from the actual cement plant, instead of using generic data representing industry
average cement manufacturing in the United States. Requiring supply chain-specific data for the
production states with the largest impact on emissions increases the value of an EPD by making it more
representative of the actual product. Buy Clean policies in other states rely on EPDs that are supply-
chain specific, product-specific, or facility-specific. Product-specific EPDs represent product from a single
manufacturer, and a facility-specific EPD reports impacts calculated from the facilities where the
product was manufactured. Industry-wide average EPDs exist but are not typically used for reporting
under Buy Clean policies, as they do not have specific enough data to reflect meaningful impacts.
2.2 Project execution
The pilot study was divided into the following five major tasks:
● Task 1: Develop initial data reporting structure
● Task 2: Solicit feedback (on the data reporting structure)
● Task 3: Develop prototype database, and scope long-term database needs and requirements
● Task 4: Coordinate with identified pilots and identify additional case study pilot projects
● Task 5: Collect pilot project data
These tasks are shown in the project timeline diagram in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Project timeline diagram.
There were two main streams of work:
1) The database, which is detailed in Section 3: Prototype database
2) The pilot projects, which is detailed in Section 4: Pilot projects
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 7
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Section 5: Recommendations for a future BCBF program summarizes the recommendations resulting
from the database work and pilot project case studies.
2.3 Quarterly stakeholder update meetings
The project team held quarterly update meetings to update general stakeholders about the progress of
the BCBF Project. Invitees include Representative Davina Duerr, Representative Sharon Shewmake,
Senator Derek Stanford, and representatives from local labor unions and environmental NGOs. The
meeting schedule and topic summaries are shown below:
September 30, 2021: General intro to project; data reporting templates; plan for stakeholder
engagement with industry
January 13, 2022: Progress report highlights; updated pilot project list; summary of feedback
from stakeholder engagement
April 14, 2022: Cancelled due to lack of updates (undergoing the UW procurement process to
hire the database developer)
June 17, 2022: Update on database consultant hire; updated project timeline; new deadline and
debrief requests with pilot projects
September 16, 2022: Show a preview of the database and summarize the lessons learned from
the pilot projects
The presentation slides were sent to the audience after each meeting.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 8
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
3 Prototype database
This section describes the work of developing the prototype database.
The first step was to develop the data reporting structure; that is, decide on data collection fields and
how they should be organized and presented to the user. The second step was to gather stakeholder
feedback to improve the initial data reporting structure. The third step was to create the database,
which involved hiring a database developer and working with them through the process of designing the
database and user interface. The resulting prototype database was still under development at the time
of writing this report, but previews of the database are shown in the last subsection.
3.1 Developing the initial data reporting structure
The first step in creating the data reporting structure was to determine which fields needed to be in the
database. At a minimum, the database needed to include the information specified by the Operating
Budget proviso. The research team also included additional fields to help characterize the building
projects. To select these additional fields, the research team analyzed data structures from multiple
tools and databases that collected environmental data for buildings, which are listed below:
1. Previous work done by the CLF on whole building life cycle assessment (WBLCA) taxonomy4
2. Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator (EC3)5
3. SE20506 database
4. deQo7
5. AIA DDx8
6. LETI9
4
Taxonomy for Whole Building LCA can be accessed at https://carbonleadershipforum.org/lca-practice-guide/
5 https://buildingtransparency.org/ec3
6
SE2050 is a commitment program from the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) that has done work on how to characterize a building in a database.
7
deQo (database of embodied Quantity outputs) is an interactive online tool provided by the MIT Building
Technology Program that contains global warming potential and material quantity data of buildings.
8
AIA DDx is the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Design Data Exchange (DDx). It is an online database that lets
AEC professionals benchmark their projects against industry averages and track performance.
9
LETI (London Energy Transformation Initiative) is a network of over 1,000 built environment professionals
working to put London on the path to a zero carbon future. The voluntary group is made up of developers,
engineers, housing associations, architects, planners, contractors, facilities managers and more.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 9
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
The research team included the following additional fields for characterizing the building projects:
Project name
General contractor (name of firm)
Zip code of project location
Construction start date (mm/yyyy)
Construction completion date (mm/yyyy)
New, existing, or renovation
Project phase at submittal
Building use type
Construction type (per IBC)
Seismic design category (per IBC/ASCE7)
Building height above grade
Number of stories above grade
Number of stories below grade
Gross floor area - new construction
Gross floor area - existing
Gross floor area - renovation
Gross floor area - total
Primary type of lateral force resisting system
Primary type of foundation system
Primary horizontal gravity system
Primary vertical gravity system
Typical floor live load
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 10
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
3.1.1 The BCBF data collection process
The resulting data fields are divided into two categories: (1) project-related data, to be filled out by the
contractor, and (2) product-related data, to be filled out by suppliers/manufacturers. Figure 2
summarizes the expected data collection process from the contractors and the suppliers, identifying
who needs to collect which data and where the data need to go.
Figure 2. Overview of the data collection process for the Buy Clean and Buy Fair (BCBF) Database.
Under the requirements of this pilot study, the contractor was responsible for providing material
quantities of the covered products. Note that this contrasts with most case studies and whole building
life cycle assessment (WBLCA) studies evaluating the environmental impacts of buildings, which are
performed using material quantity estimates from the designers. Purchased quantities as documented
by the contractor will be more accurate. The contractor was also responsible for notifying their relevant
suppliers about the data collection requirements of BCBF. The suppliers were expected to provide EPDs,
health certifications (if available), manufacturer names and locations, codes of conduct (if available), and
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 11
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
working conditions data. Ultimately, the contractor was responsible for working with suppliers to collect
this information and submit it to the database before the substantial completion of the building project.
The contractor was not responsible for verifying the data collected from the supplier.
This figure shows that the EC310 tool may be used to submit this data to the BCBF Database. EC3
(Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator) is a cloud-based database of digitized EPDs maintained by
Building Transparency. Building Transparency is a non-profit organization established to continue the
management and development of the EC3 tool, as well as provide the resources and education
necessary to ensure its adoption. EC3 is a comprehensive database for American EPDs, and includes
many EPDs from around the world. CLF contracted with Building Transparency to develop this new
feature in the EC3 tool.
3.1.2 Initial data reporting templates
A spreadsheet was created for both user types – the contractor and the supplier – so the initial data
reporting templates could be shared with pilot projects and stakeholders easily and early. A sample
screenshot from each spreadsheet is shown below: Figure 3 shows the material quantity data collection
table from the Contractor Reporting Template, and Figure 4 shows the working conditions labor data
collection table from the Supplier Reporting Template. More screenshots from these initial reporting
templates are shown in Appendix A: Reporting templates.
Figure 3. Screenshot of a page from the Contractor Reporting Template (Sheet 2. Material Data).
10
https://buildingtransparency.org/
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 12
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Figure 4. Screenshot of a page from the Supplier Reporting Template (Sheet 6. Working Conditions Data).
3.2 Gathering stakeholder feedback
After developing the initial data reporting templates, the research team organized a stakeholder
feedback process. The purpose of gathering stakeholder feedback was to improve the data collection
templates and further engage people and groups who were interested in the BCBF pilot study. This
section describes the feedback process and the feedback results.
3.2.1 Stakeholder feedback process
The target audience (stakeholders) for the feedback process consisted of people from the following
groups:
● Contractors
● Manufacturers
● Architects and engineers
● Developers of related databases (AIA DDX, SE2050, EC3)
● Researchers/NGOs interested in outputs and data
The full list of organizations invited to participate in the stakeholder feedback process is in Appendix B1:
Stakeholder feedback process.
To collect feedback from the stakeholders, the research team performed the following tasks:
1. Invited stakeholders to provide feedback. The email sent to the stakeholders (Contractor
version) is included in Appendix B1: Stakeholder feedback process. The Supplier version is very
similar. These emails asked stakeholders to complete a survey and attend an optional meeting
(described below). The research team gave the stakeholders one month to review the templates
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 13
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
and complete the survey.
2. Created two online surveys, one for each reporting template, with general and targeted
questions about the reporting template. The survey asked questions such as “Do you
understand what this project is asking from contractors?”, “Is any of the basic project
information difficult for you to collect?”, and “How would you improve this sheet?” The survey
assured the responders that the research team would not share their identities, but may
attribute feedback to types of organizations (for example, “Feedback from [concrete suppliers,
contractors, researchers, etc.] included _______.”) Survey results are in Appendix B2:
Stakeholder feedback surveys.
3. Held two online presentations to introduce each reporting template and answer any
questions. The research team held one presentation for each reporting template, recorded the
presentations, and e-mailed the slides and recording to stakeholders afterward, along with a
summary of the Q&A.
4. Collected feedback through online surveys and revised the data collection templates based on
that feedback. The research team reviewed the feedback from the online surveys and
incorporated suggestions that were feasible within the constraints of the provisos, and tabled
others that were not feasible within the constraints of the provisos. This stakeholder feedback is
summarized in the next subsection.
3.2.2 Stakeholder feedback summary
This section summarizes the stakeholder feedback from both reporting templates. Broadly, the research
team received three types of feedback:
1. The first type of feedback provided suggestions about how the templates could more clearly
communicate the intent and requirements for reporting and using the BCBF reporting database.
This type of feedback was, for the most part, unequivocally adopted into the next iteration of
the reporting templates.
2. The second type of feedback was about the data reporting structure. The research team
attempted to incorporate this feedback while striking a balance between collecting information
that was useful and valuable but would not be overly burdensome or complicated to report.
3. The third type of feedback was regarding the reporting requirements themselves; that is, which
data should or should not be reported. For the most part, this feedback conflicted with the
directions of the provisos, and therefore could not be incorporated into the pilot database.
However, it was important feedback about the pilot program and is presented in Section 5.3
Feedback on reporting requirements.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 14
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
The detailed feedback from the surveys is in Appendix B3: Stakeholder feedback summary.
3.3 Creating the prototype database
After reviewing the stakeholder feedback and using it to update the data reporting templates, the
research team began creating the actual database.
3.3.1 Consulting database experts
In preparation for the development of the prototype database, the research team consulted with
several database experts in the CLF network, showed them the initial data collection templates, and
gathered feedback on database best practices. The database experts emphasized the importance of
finding someone with expertise in user experience (UX) design to create a user interface that would
improve the quality and quantity of submitted data. This advice informed the Request for Proposal (RFP)
developed to hire a database consultant.
3.3.2 Hiring a database consultant
The research team carried out UW’s RFP process to select a qualified vendor to help create the
database. The research team sought a vendor with the following qualifications:
5+ years of experience in database development
Demonstrated success in creating databases that collect data from the public (users who are not
subject matter experts)
Demonstrated success in user experience (UX) design in front-end web applications, including
accessible and responsive web design
Capability to develop a detailed scope of work for a government-run database, including cost
estimate
Ability to meet the project schedule
1-3 years of experience in the building or construction field
The research team convened a review committee to select the vendor. The review committee
comprised project team members from UW and Commerce, as well as people in IT departments from
both organizations. After reviewing and scoring the bid packages and interviewing three finalists, the
review committee selected Meserow Design. This RFP-procurement process took five months.
During the RFP process, the research team also coordinated with UW’s Office of the Chief Information
Security Officer (CISO) and the UW Privacy Office to ensure that the project met security requirements
and data privacy requirements.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 15
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
3.3.3 Creating the database
Given the extensive work done on the spreadsheets for Contractor and Supplier data collection, the
BCBF database was partially scoped out by the time the web interface entered the design phase.
Meserow Design worked on adding process usability and data validation of submitted answers, in terms
of opportunity for help text, error catching, additional groupings, and required information.
The project began in late June 2022 with a design phase, then moved into database development in July
2022. The project schedule for database development is illustrated in Figure 5. Currently, the website
application is undergoing active development at https://bcbf.meserow.com. It will move to Washington
State Department of Commerce servers at the end of October.
Figure 5. Project schedule for designing and developing the database application.
Screenshots of the user interface in the rest of this section are from the mock-ups of the user interface
design, not of the final product. The actual prototype database may differ from this report.
A screenshot of the landing page (still under development) is shown in Figure 6.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 16
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Figure 6. Landing page for the database application (under development). Banner artwork was created by the
Washington State Department of Commerce.
Meserow Design came into this project with experience developing software in green building
construction. Its approach to the software significantly informed the database structure and user
interface design. Meserow Design has been developing green building scorecards for King County since
2014 and understood the evolving nature of tracking sustainable construction. The database was
designed as a configurable survey so questions could be added, deleted, or modified by administrators
as the task of encouraging analyzable submissions becomes clearer during the prototype.
The prototype database closely follows the spreadsheets developed for this prototype. However, the
survey approach involves storing the question and answer types in a database table once past the user
setup and project setup steps. The diagram of the database can be viewed as having two parts:
1. The establishment of projects, users, contractors, suppliers, and their survey responses (and the
relationship between these objects), as shown in Figure 7
2. The survey sections, areas, questions, answers, and the answer options involved, as shown in
Figure 8
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 17
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Figure 7. Part 1 of the Database Diagram, showing Projects, Users, Contractors, Suppliers, and Survey Responses.
Figure 8. Part 2 of the Database Diagram, showing Surveys, Sections, Areas, Questions, Answers, and Answer
Options.
Under this approach, the BCBF database will allow for a variety of answer types (textual, numeric, URLs,
dropdowns, multi-select dropdowns), repeated groups of questions, answers with help information, and
answers with comment boxes in case the question was not clear.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 18
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
In terms of workflow, Figure 9 presents a diagram showing the three user types (Administrators,
Contractors, and Suppliers) and the pages of the survey they proceed through on their way to
submission.
Figure 9. Website workflow for Administrators, Contractors, and Suppliers (wood, steel, and concrete).
Administrators will have a basic dashboard providing reporting tools and a simple overview of what has
been submitted. Administrators will be able to export a summary of the data in the submissions and
view some charting regarding submissions and global warming potential (GWP) impacts of the projects.
The BCBF Database will use EC3’s application programming interface (API) to look up the GWP value of
the submitted construction products, since EC3 has already done the work of extracting the GWP values
from the PDF files. An example of what this Administrator page might look like is shown in Figure 10.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 19
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Figure 10. An example of what the BCBF administrator dashboard might look like (in progress).
Contractors will proceed through the process mapped in Figure 9 by providing details about their project
and the building itself, and then begin on the fourth page of the interface (the Materials Page), to
explain the material types, subtypes, and additional information, as shown in Figure 11.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 20
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Figure 11. The BCBF user interface (Materials Page), where a Contractor enters types and subtypes of concrete,
steel, and wood on the project.
When the Materials page is completed by the general contractor, the remainder of the survey
automatically asks specific questions applicable to this project about each combination of material
type/subtype/product subtype.
For instance, if the general contractor reports the use of three strength types (in psi) of Ready-Mix
Concrete and two strength types of Controlled Density Fill, they will be asked to fill out five areas of
information, including supplier details, about those uses. This is illustrated in Figure 12, which
demonstrates how Contractors create supplier logins.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 21
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Figure 12. A screenshot of the BCBF user interface where a Contractor enters material details for concrete,
including EPD and supplier information.
Once a Contractor has provided Supplier information, which includes creating the Supplier login, the
specified Supplier will receive an email asking them to complete information about the process of
creating the product (an example for a wood product is shown in Figure 13).
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 22
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Figure 13. Wood supplier Fiber Sourcing details, including chain-of-custody, location information, and owner.
After providing those details, in the case of wood, the Supplier will enter additional information about
the product and the manufacturing facility, including working conditions (a screenshot for a wood
product is shown in Figure 14).
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 23
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Figure 14. Wood product manufacturing plant details, including code-of-conduct, number of employees and
employee types, collective bargaining coverage, and wages.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 24
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
4 Pilot projects
The purpose of conducting a case study analysis on pilot projects was to test the proposed data
collection requirements and gather feedback on how to facilitate reporting in a potential future BCBF
program.
The capital budget proviso specified the Interdisciplinary Engineering Building (IEB) at UW Seattle and
Milgard Hall at UW Tacoma as two required pilot projects for this study. The research team also added
two pilot projects from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT): a fuel island and
a radio tower at their new Olympic Region Maintenance Administration Facility. Both of these projects
were scheduled to be complete by fall 2022.
In addition to these projects, the research team reached out to several projects named in the 2018
proviso for the previous Buy Clean pilot study.11 This proviso, from section 1030 of the 2018
supplemental capital budget (ESSB 6095), required project teams to collaborate with the University of
Washington to test the availability of EPDs and report third-party verified EPDs for eligible materials, if
available. At the time this proviso was issued, these projects were unable to fulfill the data reporting
requirements for the previous pilot study because they had not finished construction (and in some cases
had not started construction) when the previous pilot study concluded, but they could be used for this
study. These projects were:
● Western Washington University Sciences Building Addition and Renovation
● Shoreline Community College Allied Health, Science, and Manufacturing Replacement
● Secretary of State Library Archive Building
The Secretary of State Library Archive Building was not included in this pilot study because of delays
related to the project site.
A summary of the pilot projects is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Pilot project information
Project Project full name Proviso status Construction Covered products in
short name schedule project
UW IEB Interdisciplinary Included in 2021 May 2021 - May Concrete, rebar, structural
Engineering Building capital budget 2024 (anticipated) steel
(IEB) at UW Seattle proviso
11
https://carbonleadershipforum.org/studying-buy-clean-policy/
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 25
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Project Project full name Proviso status Construction Covered products in
short name schedule project
UW Milgard Milgard Hall at UW Included in 2021 Summer 2021 - Concrete, rebar, structural
Hall Tacoma capital budget October 2022 steel, mass timber
proviso
WSDOT Olympic Region Voluntary reporting, March 2021 - July Concrete, rebar, structural
Maintenance not named in 2022 steel
Administration Facility proviso
(ORMAF) - Fuel Island
Olympic Region Voluntary reporting, December 2021 - Concrete, rebar, structural
Maintenance not named in January 2022 steel
Administration Facility proviso
(ORMAF) - Radio
Tower
Shoreline Shoreline Community Included in 2018 July 2021 – January Concrete, rebar, structural
College - Allied Health, capital budget 2024 steel
Science, and proviso
Manufacturing
Replacement
WWU Western Washington Included in 2018 May 2020 - Dec Concrete, rebar, structural
University - Sciences capital budget 2021 steel
building addition and proviso
renovation
The research team supported all of the included pilot projects by:
● Having an initial kick-off meeting with each pilot project team. These meetings usually involved
2-3 people from the construction firm, 1-2 project managers from the owner (if available), and
sometimes 2-3 people from the architecture firm.
● Having quarterly check-in meetings. However, this was optional depending on the preference of
the pilot project teams.
● Sending the contractor a letter to suppliers that they could pass on to each of their suppliers.
This letter explained the requirements of the BCBF Project.
● Sending the contractors both reporting templates (Excel files) as soon as possible so they knew
the expected data submittal requirements.
● Inviting them to stakeholder meetings.
● Sending them e-mail updates when the project schedule changed.
● Holding debrief meetings with the pilot project teams at the end of the pilot study, and
collecting feedback through Zoom meetings and a survey.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 26
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
4.1 Data collection
The research team asked the pilot projects to submit the following information by August 2022:
Data collection spreadsheets:
o Contractor Reporting Spreadsheet, filled out
o Supplier Reporting Spreadsheets, filled out for each of the following materials used on
the project:
Concrete
Reinforcing steel, or “rebar”
Structural steel
Engineered wood, or “wood”
EPDs for each of the following materials used on the project:
o Concrete
o Reinforcing steel, or “rebar”
o Structural steel
o Engineered wood, or “wood”
Items submitted by each pilot project team are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of materials received from pilot projects. “✓” = some or all of requested materials were
received. “-” = no materials were received. “N/A” = not applicable.
Data collection spreadsheets EPDs
Contractor Concrete Rebar Structural Wood Concrete Rebar Structural Wood
Pilot supplier supplier steel supplier steel
project supplier
UW IEB - - - - N/A - ✓ * N/A
UW
In
Milgard - - ✓ ✓ - ✓ ✓ ✓
progress
Hall
WSDOT
Fuel ✓ - - - N/A ✓ ✓ ✓ N/A
Island
WSDOT
Radio - - - - N/A - - - N/A
Tower
Shoreline ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ N/A ✓ ✓ ✓ N/A
WWU ✓ - - - N/A - - - N/A
* Supplier not selected yet
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 27
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
The projects that provided EPDs included the two University of Washington projects required to report
by the 2021-23 capital budget proviso, the Shoreline project named in the 2018 proviso, and other
projects that were able to insert reporting language in contracts with suppliers and trade partners.
Almost none of the submitted EPDs were supply chain-specific. The submitted EPDs were manufacturer-
specific, but since they used industry-average data for significant upstream materials, they did not
qualify as supply chain-specific.
Only two of the six pilot projects submitted a complete accounting of material quantity data; one pilot
project wasn’t far enough along to have material quantities, and the others were incomplete or
unresponsive. It was also not clear if the pilot projects met the requirements for “90% of the cost of
each of the covered products used in the project,” since the research team did not ask for cost data and
could not verify this.
Only one supplier out of approximately 20 submitted a fully complete accounting of the requested
information. Four suppliers partially completed their spreadsheets, while the others were not
responsive.
The following subsections describe the data collection experience of each pilot project.
4.1.1 UW IEB
When the pilot study began in late May 2021, the Interdisciplinary Engineering Building (IEB) at UW
Seattle was in the very early stages of schematic design. By the end of the pilot study in August 2022,
the project was beginning to select trade partners (suppliers). Due to the relatively early phase of this
project, the project team was unable to obtain many EPDs nor complete the supplier reporting forms
because they were still securing suppliers around the time of the data submittal deadline. However,
they were able to include the reporting requirements in the bid documents, which ensured that the data
requests would eventually be fulfilled.
At the time of data submittal for the pilot study, the project team had secured a supplier for concrete,
but not yet for the other materials of interest. The concrete supplier was able to provide a rebar EPD
(pre-existing), and was working on obtaining the concrete EPD from their ready-mix concrete supplier.
The concrete supplier was hesitant to provide some of the information requested in the Supplier
Reporting Form because of concerns related to privacy.
4.1.2 UW Milgard Hall
The Milgard Hall Project was in late design stages when the pilot study began in late May; they began
construction shortly after. This was the only pilot project to include engineered wood.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 28
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
The project team began contacting suppliers about the pilot study requirements as soon as possible.
Their concrete supplier had EPDs available for ready-mix concrete and rebar. The mass timber EPD was
created from scratch, which took six months from the point of requesting the EPD to publishing the EPD,
three to four months of which were needed to create the actual EPD. The structural steel supplier
needed more time to create the EPDs for their products – at least 12 months. The structural steel EPD
was not finished at the time of this report writing, but was anticipated to be completed soon. Only one
supplier (structural steel) completed the supplier reporting spreadsheet; the other suppliers were
unresponsive to requests to complete the reporting spreadsheet.
The project team surmised that the delays in the structural steel EPD were due to external trade partner
issues. They also noted that it was difficult to predict how long the EPD creation process was going to
take, since it took time to understand cost implications and communicate requirements to suppliers.
4.1.3 WSDOT Fuel Island
The WSDOT Olympic Regional Maintenance Administration Facility (ORMAF) Fuel Island Project was
under construction when the research team contacted WSDOT. The WSDOT project managers were able
to obtain material quantities and EPDs from the contractor (the EPDs were pre-existing). However, the
suppliers were unresponsive to requests to complete the supplier reporting spreadsheets. This was
likely because the BCBF data requests came in after the project had started construction, so the
contractor and suppliers were not prepared (financially and logistically) to perform this additional task,
nor were they legally required. WSDOT project managers said that the BCBF reporting requirements
seemed overwhelming at first, especially for small companies. They said that small companies would
have a hard time verifying working conditions, especially if their suppliers were global firms.
4.1.4 WSDOT Radio Tower
The WSDOT ORMAF Radio Tower project was already completed when the research team reached out
to WSDOT in January 2022. The contractor and suppliers were unresponsive to the data requests.
WSDOT asked the contractor how much time/money it would take to complete the data requests, but
they did not receive a response. The WSDOT project managers reasoned that the data requests were
likely unsuccessful because the project was already done and the company was small, didn’t have the
capacity to respond, and needed to move on to other work.
4.1.5 Shoreline Community College Allied Health, Science, and Manufacturing
The Shoreline Community College Allied Health, Science, and Manufacturing Replacement Project was
one of the pilot projects from the 2018 Buy Clean Pilot Study, so they were already prepared to provide
material quantities and EPDs. The project was under construction at the time of the data submittal, so
material quantities only reflected what was on site at the time.
This was the only pilot project to submit all of the requested materials – the contractor reporting
spreadsheet, multiple EPDs, and supplier reporting spreadsheets representing all of the suppliers
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 29
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
(though the supplier reporting spreadsheets were incomplete). This pilot project was also unique in that
the rebar and structural steel suppliers submitted multiple EPDs from multiple manufacturers for their
materials. The reinforcing steel supplier provided four EPDs from four different manufacturers, and the
structural steel supplier provided three EPDs from three manufacturers. There were additional
manufacturers for these products, but they did not have EPDs to submit at this time. This project was
already collecting EPDs in pursuit of its LEED Silver Certification. LEED certification does not specifically
require EPDs, but projects that disclose material impacts may earn credits that count towards
certification.
The project team said it was difficult to obtain all the data because they had to chase down multiple
contacts and the supply chains were long, sometimes in countries outside of the U.S. However, they said
that since this project was design-build, all of the contractors and subcontractors were on board during
preconstruction and were aware of the data reporting requirements from the beginning, which
facilitated the reporting process.
4.1.6 WWU Sciences Building Addition
The Western Washington University Sciences Building Addition and Renovation Project was another
pilot project from the 2018 Buy Clean Pilot Study. No EPDs were submitted for this project because the
project team did not know what an EPD was, and the research team did not realize this until it was too
late. The supplier reporting spreadsheets were incomplete, and the contractor reporting spreadsheet
was only partially completed. The project manager expressed general concerns about the cost and time
burden of this reporting requirement.
4.2 Feedback from contractors
The research team met with each of the pilot project teams at the end of the pilot study to discuss
challenges, how these challenges could have been addressed/prevented, and what the state
government could do to help contractors adapt to a future BCBF program. The feedback was collected in
response to five key questions, presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Feedback collected from contractors of pilot projects.
Question Summary of responses
1. If any of your suppliers The reporting requirements were something new and something to
did not provide EPDs, figure out, which must have been overwhelming at first, especially for
what do you think was/ smaller companies.
were the contributing Some project teams lacked familiarity with EPDs, which made it more
reason(s)? difficult to communicate requirements to suppliers.
There is a lack of market pressure to produce EPDs. From an individual
project level, there is not enough purchasing power to encourage larger
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 30
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Question Summary of responses
suppliers to go through the effort of getting the EPDs if they don't already
exist. Market demand would motivate suppliers to produce EPDs.
It takes time to assess finances and set things in motion.
The cost is significant.
EPDs are not a high priority for trade partners, and their resources are
limited.
2. What could have Pay them for it. The state could have a pool of money, and develop
helped support or systems and processes that make EPD production more commonplace
motivate your suppliers over time.
to provide EPDs? The state could provide resources (such as guidance) on how to create an
EPD.
The state could provide pre-qualified consultants to avoid the lengthy
RFP process or help manufacturers find trustworthy consultants to hire.
The Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC) program managed by
the Department of Enterprise Services is an example of a state program
that provides pre-qualified consultants.
Get the suppliers involved as soon as possible, during preconstruction or
design development, before the project is finalized.
Include the reporting requirements as a contract requirement in the bid
process, because the cost is significant, especially for smaller contracts
and contractors initially. If the contractors know about it before/during
the bid process, they will be able to plan ahead.
3. At what point in the Before bid. Since this is a new requirement, the more that project teams
project planning/ can get ahead of it, the better. Knowing about this pre-bid will allow
execution process project teams to plan for the time and cost of reporting, and incorporate
should suppliers be this in the overall project cost and schedule. One pilot project reported
asked to provide EPDs? that they used approximately 300 hours of an engineer’s time to
coordinate EPD and data submittal request over the course of the project.
The project specifications should have a recommended timeline.
During preconstruction or design development.
4. How difficult was it to In some cases, it was impossible to break down the materials by subtype
collect information for and building component, because the suppliers grouped the material
different parts of the quantities all into one lump sum. This is especially true for steel, for both
Contractor data rebar and structural steel. Steel suppliers also tend to order from multiple
collection form? manufacturers. If it is necessary to have material quantities be broken
down a certain way, contractors would need to include it in the project
specifications.
5. What is the best way to Provide model specifications or contract language.
engage with Provide data reporting forms.
contractors in a Communicate with the project manager of the contractor.
potential future BCBF Connect with the following bodies to hold educational sessions:
Program? o Associated General Contractors of America (AGC)
o American Institute of Architects (AIA)
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 31
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Question Summary of responses
o American Public Works Association (APWA)
o U.S. Green Building Council, maybe (USGBC)
o Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC)
Have a dedicated state employee whose job it is to answer questions and
provide guidance about the BCBF Program.
Educate owners and owners’ groups on how to administer these
requirements.
4.3 Feedback from suppliers
The research team reached out to all of the relevant suppliers toward the end of the pilot study to
request feedback on the reporting requirements. Despite multiple email reminders, only two out of 20
suppliers responded to the debrief survey. From the debrief survey (results in Appendix C: Pilot project
debrief surveys), the key takeaways were:
Two survey respondents from steel companies said that EPDs can cost as much as $50,000 and
can take four to six months to make. However, previous research showed that the costs to
create EPDs are often significantly less. An international survey on EPDs found a median cost of
$12,826. However, the range of costs vary widely, likely because the survey reflected various
types of products and other factors. Additionally, the international survey found that the
median time to create an EPD was about 20 business days.12
Names and locations of upstream suppliers are difficult to ascertain. This is especially true if the
materials were sourced from overseas, which is common with cement and some steel.
12
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221282711631318X
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 32
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
5 Recommendations for a future BCBF program
Outcomes of the BCBF Pilot Study resulted in the following recommendations for (1) administering a
potential future BCBF program, (2) running and maintaining a potential future BCBF database, and (3)
changes to the reporting requirements that were in previously proposed (but not ultimately adopted)
legislation, described in the subsections below.
5.1 Recommendations for program administration
The following are recommendations to the state government for administering a potential future BCBF
program, based on lessons learned from the pilot project. Items marked with a check box in the list
below indicate recommendations that have been incorporated with the current version of the BCBF bill.
☑ Provide model specifications so owners can use a reliable and consistent set of contract
requirements and instructions about the reporting requirements. As contractors see these
specifications in different projects, they will become familiar with the requirements more
quickly. The model specifications should include:
o A recommended timeline for when contractors should start reaching out to suppliers
and initiating the EPD requisition process. For example, project teams should
involve/inform suppliers as soon as possible about the reporting requirements, during
preconstruction or design development.
☑ Provide financial assistance for EPD creation. This could include complementary funding for LCA
consultants to develop streamlined EPD tools and third party verification processes. There can
be as much as $50,000 in upfront cost to set up a manufacturing plant to produce its first EPD,
and it may take three to 12 months to create. Data from California estimates the cost of
developing a facility-specific EPD to be approximately $10,000 per material.13 An international
survey on EPDs found a median cost of $12,826.14 These costs can be a significant burden,
especially for smaller companies. However, the cost of producing subsequent EPDs are lower,
and the annual fees following the initial registration fee are also lower.15 Although EPDs can be
costly, they are necessary for enacting effective embodied carbon reduction, and a program like
BCBF can help make them more widespread in the industry.
☑ Provide educational resources for how to navigate the BCBF requirements, including how to use
reporting databases, how to understand EPDs, and how to identify the appropriate EPDs within
the EC3 tool and/or directly from suppliers.
Provide pre-qualified consultants who can create EPDs. For example, the Energy Savings
Performance Contracting (ESPC) program managed by the Washington State Department of
13
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/engineering/documents/mets/buy-clean-ca-dot-written-
justification-a11y.pdf
14
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221282711631318X
15
https://www.environdec.com/pricing/pricing2022
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 33
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Enterprise Services provides pre-qualified consultants who can complete building energy
upgrades and retrofit projects for public agencies. Utilizing a similar model would help
Contractors and Suppliers identify qualified consultants to help them create EPDs.
☑ Have a dedicated staff person for the BCBF Program to help answer questions and provide
guidance on program requirements.
☑ Work with industry groups to conduct outreach to help educate contractors and owners on
what they should know about the reporting program. For example, owners should include the
BCBF reporting requirements in the bid documents so contractors can prepare and protect
themselves from unexpected costs.
5.2 Recommendations for the database
In the development of the prototype database, steps were taken towards developing a long-term
application for user-friendly and efficient collection of this data. The following additional items are
needed to ensure that the application and database are durable, robust, supportable, and able to scale
and evolve with the changing needs of collecting and analyzing sustainable construction and labor data:
• Improved administration dashboard with additional metrics on the collection of sustainable
construction data and allowing administrators to better track submission status and
completeness.
• Additional analytics, reports, charting, and dashboards, as future needs around reporting
requirements become clearer.
• Business continuity plan and retention policy.
• Public-facing website displaying global warming potential savings/reduction and other clear
metrics.
• Deeper integration with the EC3 database to include bidirectional communication.
• Increased support for EPDs, including robust document management options and tighter
integration with EC3.
• Full implementation of user management to include self-service and integration of
administration tools.
• Conversion to a state-managed and maintained production environment with developer and
test environments.
• Administrator tooling that will allow users to manage questions and answers as information and
analytics and construction practices continue to evolve. Feedback from the prototype will
inform the direction of future efforts.
• A method to allow suppliers to more easily provide working conditions data. Instead of requiring
them to enter working conditions data by hand, it would be easier if they could select from a
dropdown menu of options or a library of up-to-date data.
• A method to verify that the contractor has provided data for 90% of the cost of each of the
covered products used in the project, as required by the BCBF bill.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 34
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
With these upgrades and changes resulting from the prototype database and lessons learned, the BCBF
prototype database and website can be a robust application for years to come.
From working with the pilot projects, the research team also learned that a single supplier might source
their materials from multiple manufacturers, which complicates the supplier data collection workflow.
“Trade partner” was a term that the pilot projects often used to describe the companies that they
worked with to procure materials, and a trade partner might acquire the construction materials from
multiple manufacturers. Therefore, in a future version of the database, the supplier workflow should be
revised include the distinction between “trade partner” and “manufacturer.”
The research team would also consider moving the data entry section for reinforcement steel from the
Steel section to the Concrete section of the reporting form, since reinforcement steel is usually provided
by the concrete supplier.
Commerce will seek to continue the partnership with the Carbon Leadership Forum to support future
database development and program implementation efforts in pursuit of future BCBF policy in the 2022-
23 legislative session.
5.3 Feedback on reporting requirements
Even though the research team did not specifically request feedback about the reporting requirements,
some stakeholders and representatives from pilot projects offered feedback. This feedback is below:
Update the wood fiber sourcing tab to focus on ASTM D7612: Standard Practice for Categorizing
Wood and Wood-Based Products According to Their Fiber Sources.
Allow those with supply chains entirely in North America to opt out of the Code of Conduct
section due to local and national labor laws.
Labor data can be difficult to collect, especially if the manufacturing facilities are located outside
of the U.S. These requirements should be flexible based on availability.
It is difficult to separate the material quantities by building components because suppliers
normally quantify them as a lump sum. If the breakdown is truly desired, this would have to be
outlined in the project specifications.
Given that no pilot projects produced supply chain-specific EPDs for the pilot study, the research team is
curious if this requirement would be more feasible if required by state policy. Perhaps during early-stage
implementation of a BCBF reporting program, program managers could allow flexibility to use facility or
manufacturer-specific EPDs if supply chain-specific data is unavailable. This could give the industry time
to develop the data needed for supply chain-specific EPDs, and may bolster confidence and build
experience for project teams required to report data under a BCBF program.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 35
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
The suggestions and recommendations in this report will help inform future policy and program
development. If the BCBF policy currently up for consideration passes the Legislature, additional data
could be available from a variety of state projects. Commerce will continue to seek feedback from
project teams on reporting requirements, and will leverage the stakeholder working group established
by the bill to provide additional input.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 36
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
6 Conclusion
Addressing the impacts of climate change requires a comprehensive and ongoing commitment to
decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. Buy Clean and Buy Fair is an important step to establish
Washington’s commitment to mitigating the effects of embodied carbon. The 2021 State Energy
Strategy identifies key actions that need to be taken to achieve the state’s statutory greenhouse gas
limits and recommends adopting Buy Clean and Buy Fair requirements for public projects, recognizing
that this policy is essential priority in the transition to 100% clean energy.
This BCBF Pilot Study provided the opportunity to explore the process of setting up and running a BCBF
reporting program.
In developing the prototype database, the research team underwent the process of creating the first
Washington database to collect user-supplied data for a Buy Clean and Buy Fair program. This database
tracks data on state procurement of building materials and provides interoperability with the EC3 tool
and EPD data used in private-sector projects. The research team proposed a data reporting structure,
collected industry feedback to improve it, and worked with a database development team to
troubleshoot various user workflows and possible scenarios. The next step recommended by the
research team is testing the database with the pilot project teams and then implementing additional
features listed in Section 5.2 Recommendations for the database.
The pilot project case studies reinforced the importance of including the reporting requirements in the
bid documents. Project teams said that if the reporting requirements weren't in the bid documents, the
contractors couldn't contractually require their suppliers to provide the requested data. They also
couldn’t anticipate the cost of coordinating the EPD and data submittal requests from their suppliers,
which, according to one pilot project, used approximately 300 hours of an engineer’s time over the
course of the project. Those pilot projects that did secure EPDs were the ones legally required to do so,
either through the provisos or because they were able to insert reporting language in their contracts
with their trade partners. Even though this pilot study didn’t gather as much data from the pilot projects
as hoped, there were many lessons learned about how to support contractors and facilitate the
reporting process to maximize the chances of successful reporting.
The Buy Clean and Buy Fair bill for consideration during the 2022-23 legislative session is designed as a
first step to address embodied carbon in state building construction projects. The majority of a product’s
carbon footprint is generated across its supply chain, and current climate policy efforts do not address
these GHG emissions, creating a ‘carbon loophole.’ Policies like Buy Clean and Buy Fair that promote
public procurement of building materials with lower embodied emissions are widely recognized as a key
strategic lever for closing this loophole by accounting for a product’s emissions throughout its supply
chain.
With the insight gained during this pilot project, Commerce is well positioned to implement Buy Clean
and Buy Fair policy. Should the BCBF bill pass, Commerce will incorporate recommendations from the
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 37
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
pilot and develop a BCBF program that encourages broader adoption of EPDs, supports project teams
with reporting requirements, tracks procurement data for concrete, wood, and steel used in state
building projects, and convenes stakeholders to explore opportunities to strengthen market demand
and supply of low-carbon building materials.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 38
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Appendix A: Reporting templates
Figure 15 through Figure 17 capture the three sheets of the Contractor Reporting Template, and Figure
18 through Figure 24 capture the six sheets of the Supplier Reporting Template. These images reflect
updates made to the templates based on survey feedback.
Figure 15. Sheet 0: Introduction from the Contractor Reporting Template
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 39
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Figure 16. Sheet 1: Project Info from the Contractor Reporting Template
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 40
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Figure 17. Sheet 2: Material quantity data from the Contractor Reporting Template
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 41
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Figure 18. Sheet 0: Introduction from the Supplier Reporting Template
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 42
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Figure 19. Sheet 1: Contact Info and EPD Data from the Supplier Reporting Template
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 43
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Figure 20. Sheet 2: Fiber Sourcing Data from the Supplier Reporting Template
Figure 21. Sheet 3: Health Certification from the Supplier Reporting Template
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 44
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Figure 22. Sheet 4: Code of Conduct from the Supplier Reporting Template
Figure 23. Sheet 5: Production Facilities from the Supplier Reporting Template
Figure 24. Sheet 6: Working Conditions from the Supplier Reporting Template
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 45
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Appendix B: Stakeholder feedback
Appendix B1: Stakeholder feedback process
List of stakeholders invited to complete feedback survey and attend feedback
sessions
Number of invitees to each meeting
Meeting 1 - Meeting 2 -
Type of Contractor Supplier
organization Organization Template Template Both
Architect EHDD 1
KieranTimberlake 2
LMN 1
Miller Hull 1
Perkins + Will 2
ZGF 1
Contractor Absherco 1
AGC of Washington 1
Andersen Construction 2
BNBuilders 2
Hensel Phelps (design builder) 2
Hoffman 1
Lewis Builds 1
McKinstry 1
Mortenson 1
Sellen 1
Skanska 2
Tiger Construction 1
Turner Construction 1
Webcor 1
Engineer MKA 1
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 46
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Number of invitees to each meeting
Meeting 1 - Meeting 2 -
Type of Contractor Supplier
organization Organization Template Template Both
Independent Independent consultant with relevant 1 3 1
consultant experience
NGO - building AIA 1
industry
SE2050 / LeMessurier 1
SE2050 / Meyer Borgman Johnson 1
NGO - Blue Green Alliance 1
environmental
National Indian Carbon Coalition 1
Washington Environmental Council 1
Washington Forest Protection Association 1
Labor United Steelworkers District 12 1
USW District 338 1
Washington Fair Trade 1
State University of Washington Project Managers 3
Washington State Department of Enterprise 3
Services
Supplier - Cadman (a Lehigh Hanson company) 1
concrete
Cal Portland 2
Lehigh Hanson 1
Stoneway Concrete 1
Supplier - glass Saint-Gobain 2
Supplier - BASF Corporation (polystyrene) 1
insulation
Hunter Panels (polyiso) 1
Supplier - Clark Pacific 1
precast
concrete
Supplier - steel Nucor Steel 1
Tri States Rebar (Spokane) 1
Supplier - wood Weyerhaeuser 2
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 47
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Number of invitees to each meeting
Meeting 1 - Meeting 2 -
Type of Contractor Supplier
organization Organization Template Template Both
Supplier - wood Structurlam 1
(mass timber)
Vaagen Timbers 1
Trade American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) 2
association
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) 1
American Wood Council (AWC) 1
Fenestration and Glazing Industry Alliance 1
North American Insulation Manufacturers 1
Association (NAIMA)
National Glass Association (NGA) 1
National Insulation Association (NIA) 1
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association 2
(NRMCA)
Grand Total 31 37 8
Invitation email to stakeholders to participate in feedback process (Supplier
version)
Hello,
I am reaching out to invite you to participate in the stakeholder feedback process for the Buy Clean and Buy Fair
(BCBF) Washington Project being led by the Washington State Department of Commerce and University of
Washington College of Built Environment. A brief description of the project is attached for your reference.
We are asking you to provide feedback on the Supplier Reporting Template (a separate form collects Contractor
reporting information). This reporting template will be used to collect environmental and social impact data for
a select list of materials used in state-funded construction projects.
How to submit feedback:
● To provide feedback, please complete the following survey: Survey on Supplier Reporting Template. A
link to the template is in this survey. If any of the questions in this form aren't relevant to you, please
feel free to skip as you see fit. Emails are only collected for clarification.
● The goal of this survey is to collect user feedback that will help U.S. 1) create a data collection form that
is clear, straight-forward, and user-friendly, and 2) create a database of material data that will contain
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 48
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
useful environmental information about construction projects. Therefore, please share this email with
the appropriate team member who can provide feedback on the required data collection.
● We are only accepting written feedback at this time to ensure that we accurately capture feedback
from all stakeholders.
Deadline:
The deadline to submit feedback via the survey form above is November 23, 2021.
What will we do with this feedback?
● We will include a summary of feedback in our progress report to the Washington Legislature in January
2021, as well as a list of which organizations were invited to participate.
● We will use this feedback to improve the format, user experience, and structure of the reporting
templates and database.
● We will not attribute feedback to specific individuals. However, we may attribute feedback
anonymously by organization, such as “Feedback from [concrete suppliers, contractors, researchers,
etc.] included _______.”
Questions?
We are happy to answer questions via email: please reach out to Monica Huang and Meghan Lewis.
There is an optional meeting Thursday, October 28 at 11am PST that will be recorded and shared with invited
participants following the meeting. This will only provide an overview and an opportunity to answer questions.
Meeting Information: Oct 28, 2021 11:00 AM PST
Join meeting: https://washington.zoom.us/j/91775941953
Meeting ID: 917 7594 1953
Find your local number: https://washington.zoom.us/u/aelxjAc1ig
Thank you in advance for your participation in this feedback process, and please reach out with any questions!
Sincerely,
Meghan Lewis, Senior Researcher, UW College of the Built Environment
Monica Huang, Researcher, UW College of the Built Environment
Follow-up email to stakeholders to following (Supplier version)
Hello all,
I am writing to follow-up on our invitation to provide feedback on the BCBF WA Reporting Database and to
provide a link to the overview meeting last Thursday.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 49
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Slides of the meeting are attached, and here is a recording of the call:
https://washington.zoom.us/rec/share/E2CoEZ78rECAmmD75HS7DpNDLRKyKTwlAHLKdCTdiGM4QdsFhBN_lKbg
Vg_8vQNP.8LmntPhDspTOhPAs
A few questions that came up during the call:
● When are EPDs collected? The BCBF pilot project and database is testing the requirements of HB 1103.
Per that bill, EPDs are not required until project completion and (eventually) at time of install. Neither
the legislation nor pilot program require EPDs at time of bid.
● Which materials are included in the pilot? Structural and reinforcing steel products, concrete products,
and engineered wood products are included in the pilot. However, envelope materials such as glass and
insulation are included in the material quantities list and database per the scope of the database set by
legislature.
● What do contractors fill out? Contractors will be responsible for providing project information and
material quantities. Material quantities are linked to a specific product via EPD number (if an EPD is
required). See the contractor reporting form here, for reference.
● Why don't the dropdowns work? If you would like edit access to the form to be able to use the
dropdown functionality shown in the recording, please reach out. We are happy to change it from view
access.
As a reminder, here is the survey for providing feedback. We ask that you complete this survey by November 23
at the latest, to ensure we can incorporate feedback in the progress report to WA legislature that is due January
1. Please reach out with any questions, and thank you again for your participation.
Best,
Meghan
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 50
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Appendix B2: Stakeholder feedback surveys
Feedback Survey for Contractor Reporting Form
Page Content and questions
1. Introduction The purpose of this survey is to collect feedback on the draft Contractor Reporting Form for the
Buy Clean and Buy Fair (BCBF) Washington Project. The goal of the BCBF Project is to help the
State of Washington identify purchasing opportunities aligned with its carbon reduction goals
and economic development goals. This form will be used to collect basic project information and
material quantity data for materials used in state-funded construction projects. The collected
data will be stored in an online database as a part of the BCBF Project.
This feedback will help U.S. 1) create a data collection form that is clear, straight-forward, and
user-friendly, and 2) create a database of material data that will contain useful environmental
information about construction projects. This survey will take approximately 10 minutes to
complete. If any of the questions in this form aren't relevant to you, please feel free to skip as
you see fit.
You can view the Contractor Reporting Template here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1robhuQ5Ari7IOpCwst8Ouk7sVYoks_NlyjydxaGkyKc/e
dit?usp=sharing.
What will we do with this feedback?
- We will include a summary of feedback in our progress report to the Washington Legislature in
January 2021, as well as a list of which organizations participated.
- We will use this feedback to improve the format, user experience, and structure of the
reporting templates and database.
- Emails will only be used for clarifying questions on the feedback.
- We will not attribute information to individuals. However, we may attribute feedback to
groups of organizations (e.g. “Feedback from [concrete suppliers, contractors, researchers, etc.]
included _______.”)
2. Contact Email:
information
First name:
Last name:
What best represents your organization’s role?
o Industry Trade Organization
o Architecture
o Engineering
o Contractor
o Government
o Research
o Other
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 51
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Page Content and questions
3. Feedback Is the background information on BCBF clear? Too much information? Too little
for the "0. information? Elaborate.
Introduction"
sheet Do you understand what this project is asking from contractors?
Are the instructions unclear? How so?
How would you improve this sheet?
4. Feedback Is any of the basic project information difficult for you to collect?
for the "1. ☐ Project information
Project Info" ☐ Building design requirements
sheet ☐ Building dimensions
☐ Structural design
If you checked a box in the previous questions, why is that information difficult to collect?
What documents would you need to reference to fill this section out? (e.g. would the
information typically found on a cover sheet for architectural or structural drawings be
enough, or would you need additional documents?)
Does the distinction between new construction, existing building, and renovation make
sense? How might you define these differently? The information currently shown is
consistent with LEED.
Would you need additional definitions to fill out this section?
Are the instructions unclear? How so?
How would you improve this sheet?
5. Feedback Are there any material categories, building components, product types, or product sub-
for the "2. types that you would add? Any that you would take away?
Material Data"
sheet Is your bill of materials adequate to fill this section out? If not, what other resources
would you need to collect before filling out this form?
Are the units consistent with how you collect and report these data?
Are the instructions unclear? How so?
How would you improve this sheet?
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 52
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Feedback Survey for Supplier Reporting Form
Page Content and questions
1. Introduction The purpose of this survey is to collect feedback on the draft Supplier Reporting Form for the
Buy Clean and Buy Fair (BCBF) Washington Project. The goal of the BCBF Project is to help the
State of Washington identify purchasing opportunities aligned with its carbon reduction goals
and economic development goals. This form will be used to collect environmental and social
impact information for materials used in state-funded construction projects. The collected data
will be stored in an online database as a part of the BCBF Project.
This feedback will help U.S. 1) create a data collection form that is clear, straight-forward, and
user-friendly, and 2) create a database of material data that will contain useful environmental
information about construction projects. This survey will take approximately 10 minutes to
complete. If any of the questions in this form aren't relevant to you, please feel free to skip as
you see fit.
You can view the Supplier Reporting Template here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oOXGOJYuSV6QUutvTqJGzo79O2K3Vo2xNZl7LaBFqm
M/edit?usp=sharing
What will we do with this feedback?
- We will include a summary of feedback in our progress report to the Washington Legislature in
January 2021, as well as a list of which organizations participated.
- We will use this feedback to improve the format, user experience, and structure of the
reporting templates and database.
- Emails will only be used for clarifying questions on the feedback.
- We will not attribute information to individuals. However, we may attribute feedback to
groups of organizations (e.g. “Feedback from [concrete suppliers, contractors, researchers, etc.]
included _______.”)
2. Contact Email:
information
First name:
Last name:
What best represents your organization’s role?
o Industry Trade Organization
o Architecture
o Engineering
o Contractor
o Government
o Research
o Other
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 53
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Page Content and questions
3. Feedback Is the background information on BCBF clear? Too much information? Too little
for the "0. information? Elaborate.
Introduction"
sheet Do you understand what this project is asking from suppliers?
Are the instructions unclear or confusing? How so?
How would you improve this sheet?
4. Feedback Should we be asking for more information? Less information?
for the "1.
Contact Info Are the instructions unclear? How so?
and EPD Data"
sheet How would you improve this sheet?
5. Feedback For wood suppliers: Which of these (if any) is particularly difficult to answer or quantify?
for the "2. ☐ Chain-of-custody certification
Fiber Sourcing ☐ Percent volume of sourced wood with forest management certification
Data" sheet ☐ Percent volume of wood by state/province and country
☐ Percent volume of wood by owner type, e.g. federal, state, private, or other
If you checked a box in the previous questions, why is that information difficult to collect?
Are the instructions unclear? How so?
How would you improve this sheet?
6. Feedback Is the background information on health certifications clear? If not, what is unclear about
for the "3. it?
Health
Certification" Are the instructions unclear? How so?
sheet
How would you improve this sheet?
7. Feedback How familiar are you with your company's Supplier Code of Conduct and the ILO's four
for the "4. fundamental principles and rights at work within the manufacturer supply chain?
Code of
Conduct"
sheet
Is there other information we should ask about the Supplier Code of Conduct?
Are the instructions unclear? How so?
How would you improve this sheet?
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 54
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Page Content and questions
8. Feedback Is there other information we should ask about the production facilities?
for the "5.
Production Are the instructions unclear? How so?
Facilities"
sheet How would you improve this sheet?
9. Feedback Is the background information provided sufficient? What other information do you need
for the "6. to fill out this sheet?
Working
Conditions" For suppliers: Is any of this information difficult for you to collect?
sheet ☐ Number of employees
☐ Number of employees by weekly hour bands
☐ Hourly wage by quartiles
☐ Percent of employees covered by collective bargaining agreement
If you checked a box in the previous questions, why is that information difficult to collect?
Is there other information we should be asking about to help WA understand working
conditions in facilities where it purchases products?
Are the instructions unclear? How so?
How would you improve this sheet?
Appendix B3: Stakeholder feedback summary
The following is a summary of feedback about how templates could more clearly communicate the
intent and requirements of BCBF:
● Expand the introduction tabs on both templates to cover definitions and background
information, FAQs, motivation for BCBF, its history, and intent for how the data collected will be
used.
● Better distinguish the introduction of each spreadsheet to more directly address the supplier
and contractor, respectively.
● Reorganize and reformat sections to consolidate instructions.
● Clarify which data is anonymous.
● Update instructions to better address “edge-cases” (i.e., unusual or ambiguous scenarios) and
clearly outline our intention.
● Make slight wording changes to align more closely with industry-standard terminology.
● Distinguish between industry-average and product-specific EPDs and clarify the type of EPD
being asked for in the Supplier Reporting Template.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 55
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
● Use a different classification system for building type in the Contractor Reporting Template
Project Information sheet to allow for more options for ‘building use type’.
● Update the format of the product data collection sheet in the Contractor Reporting Template to
more clearly emphasize that structural products are required, and other products are
encouraged but optional.
The following is a summary of feedback about the data reporting structure:
● Reformat the entire spreadsheet to allow for multiple product inputs on the same spreadsheet
rather than requiring different submissions for each entry.
● Include the option for a secondary building use type as applicable on the Project Information
sheet of the Contractor Reporting Template.
● Remove the requirement to include the building component (e.g. stair, column, structural wall)
● Include MasterSpec sections for all products identified.
The following is a summary of feedback about the reporting requirements:
● Update the wood-fiber sourcing tab to focus on ASTM D7612: Standard Practice for Categorizing
Wood and Wood-Based Products According to Their Fiber Sources.
● Allow those with supply chains entirely in North America to opt out of the Code of Conduct
section due to local and national labor laws.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 56
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Final Report DRAFT
Appendix C: Pilot project debrief surveys
The results of the Contractor Debrief Survey and the Supplier Debrief Survey are shown here.
Contractor Debrief Survey Results
The screenshots below show the results from the Contractor Debrief Survey (collected using Google
Forms), excluding survey questions that identified the respondent.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 57
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 58
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Supplier Debrief Survey Results
The screenshots below show the results from the Supplier Debrief Survey (collected using Google
Forms), excluding survey questions that identified the respondent.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 59
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 60
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 61
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Appendix D: Legislative mandates
Section 128 (68) of the 2021-23 biennial operating budget (ESSB
5092)
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 62
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Section 1050, Chapter 332, Laws of 2021 (the 2021-23 capital
budget)
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 63
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 64
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Pilot Study: Final Report
November 2022
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 65
File and source
- File
- 2022_commercereports-buycleanbuyfair-53fdb528-dcef-4e4a-b074-b15f4a92ba6f.pdf
- Size
- 12,710,822 bytes
- SHA-256
- deaad10d51c73bddb9526705cacb104fe3f51c348328cfa0a9639d32ce0fa620
- Original
- No public link identified.