| Overall Rating | Silver |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 56.35 |
| Liaison | Amy Kadrie |
| Submission Date | Dec. 15, 2021 |
University of Rochester
OP-11: Sustainable Procurement
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
1.50 / 3.00 |
Carl
Tietjen Associate Vice President for Purchasing and Supply Chain Purchasing |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
Part 1. Institution-wide sustainable procurement policies
Yes
A copy of the policies, guidelines or directives:
The policies, guidelines or directives:
The UR has a written policy that can be found using the following link: https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/purchasing/documents/SustainabilityPolicy.pdf
Part 2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Yes
Which of the following best describes the institution’s use of LCCA?:
Institution employs LCCA less comprehensively, e.g. for certain types of systems or projects and not others
A brief description of the LCCA policy and/or practices:
If we are evaluating an Energy Conservation Measure (ECM), defined as a change or upgrade primarily to save energy, we first look at simple payback.
If the simple payback is greater than 10 years, the project is not considered (Unless there are other benefits)
If the payback is less than 5 years then it is put on a list of ECMs to perform. This list is then prioritized by the lowest simple payback, required resources and scheduling constraints.
In reality, we generally do not have a long list of EMCs that are backlogged. But what I have outlined is our process.
Repair, upgrade or replacement of equipment:
If the new purchase has an energy or cost savings component then we will do a basic evaluation first using simple payback.
Options that meet all the project requirements and have the lowest simple payback are then evaluated using ROI and LCCA.
If the purchased items provide exactly the same features and benefits, then we pick the one with the lowest LCCA.
If the purchased items have different benefits or strengths, then we create an evaluation matrix weighted for all benefits, drawbacks and LCCA to select the option that provides the best overall value to the university.
If the simple payback is greater than 10 years, the project is not considered (Unless there are other benefits)
If the payback is less than 5 years then it is put on a list of ECMs to perform. This list is then prioritized by the lowest simple payback, required resources and scheduling constraints.
In reality, we generally do not have a long list of EMCs that are backlogged. But what I have outlined is our process.
Repair, upgrade or replacement of equipment:
If the new purchase has an energy or cost savings component then we will do a basic evaluation first using simple payback.
Options that meet all the project requirements and have the lowest simple payback are then evaluated using ROI and LCCA.
If the purchased items provide exactly the same features and benefits, then we pick the one with the lowest LCCA.
If the purchased items have different benefits or strengths, then we create an evaluation matrix weighted for all benefits, drawbacks and LCCA to select the option that provides the best overall value to the university.
Part 3. Product-specific sustainability criteria
To count, the criteria must address the specific sustainability challenges and impacts associated with products and/or services in each category, e.g. by requiring or giving preference to multi-criteria sustainability standards, certifications and labels appropriate to the category. Broader, institution-wide policies should be reported in Part 1, above.
Chemically intensive products and services
No
A brief description of the published sustainability criteria for chemically intensive products and services:
---
Consumable office products
No
A brief description of the published sustainability criteria for consumable office products:
---
Furniture and furnishings
No
A brief description of the published sustainability criteria for furniture and furnishings:
---
Information Technology (IT) and equipment
No
A brief description of the published sustainability criteria for Information Technology (IT) and equipment:
---
Food service providers
Yes
A brief description of the published sustainability criteria for food service providers:
The following language is stated in our contract with Harvest Table Culinary Group: “Harvest Table shall use best efforts to comply with Client’s institutional goal of increasing the purchase of local and sustainable foods, and will use all commercially reasonable efforts to increase annually the amount spent on food and supplies grown, processed, packaged, and/or distributed in New York State by five percent (5%) over the amount spent the previous year. Harvest Table shall work with the established baseline of current sustainable food programming levels and institute programming and alignment to increase these levels.”
Our dining halls purchase additive-free, locally procured, and responsibly sourced ingredients. We ensure that at least 20% of our ingredients are grown, harvested, or produced within 150 of campus. Before choosing a vendor, we visit the farms to ensure that animal welfare and other sustainable practices are being maintained.
Additionally, the menus are created around the seasonal availability of fresh, local, and sustainable fruits and vegetables, and made by local and regional chefs. Plant-forward thinking is encouraged and followed, especially including variability in the menus with vegan, vegetarian, non-gluten, and more options available.
As published at https://dining.rochester.edu/sustainability/:
Responsible Purchasing Practices
We follow strict sourcing standards in order to deliver our guests premium ingredients with an emphasis on scratch preparation.
Our chicken is always antibiotic-free
All eggs are cage-free
Our beef is humanely raised and grass-fed, Certified Gap 4 or above
All seafood is certified Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Best Choice or Good Alternative
Our milk and yogurt is always rbGH free
Every coffee shop on campus offers at least one Fair Trade certified option
Please see attached summary used for internal communications.
Our dining halls purchase additive-free, locally procured, and responsibly sourced ingredients. We ensure that at least 20% of our ingredients are grown, harvested, or produced within 150 of campus. Before choosing a vendor, we visit the farms to ensure that animal welfare and other sustainable practices are being maintained.
Additionally, the menus are created around the seasonal availability of fresh, local, and sustainable fruits and vegetables, and made by local and regional chefs. Plant-forward thinking is encouraged and followed, especially including variability in the menus with vegan, vegetarian, non-gluten, and more options available.
As published at https://dining.rochester.edu/sustainability/:
Responsible Purchasing Practices
We follow strict sourcing standards in order to deliver our guests premium ingredients with an emphasis on scratch preparation.
Our chicken is always antibiotic-free
All eggs are cage-free
Our beef is humanely raised and grass-fed, Certified Gap 4 or above
All seafood is certified Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Best Choice or Good Alternative
Our milk and yogurt is always rbGH free
Every coffee shop on campus offers at least one Fair Trade certified option
Please see attached summary used for internal communications.
Garments and linens
No
A brief description of the published sustainability criteria for garments and linens:
---
Professional service providers
No
A brief description of the published sustainability criteria for professional service providers:
---
Transportation and fuels
Yes
A brief description of the published sustainability criteria for transportation and fuels:
The University of Rochester requires the fleet manager to purchase, lease, or otherwise obtain the most energy-efficient assets that meet the operational needs with its budgetary constraints including electric, hybrid or alternative fuel vehicle or equipment. Fleet standardization of vehicles is being developed to ensure that environmentally-friendly vehicles are purchased more regularly. The program will result in "positive impacts to the University’s carbon footprint", as stated when clicking on "Program Benefits" here: https://www.facilities.rochester.edu/support_ops/fleet.php
Optional Fields
Additional documentation to support the submission:
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
https://www.facilities.rochester.edu/support_ops/fleet.php
https://www.facilities.rochester.edu/sustainability/sustain_topics.php?link=trans#
https://dining.rochester.edu/sustainability/
https://www.facilities.rochester.edu/sustainability/sustain_topics.php?link=trans#
https://dining.rochester.edu/sustainability/
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.