Interpreting Climate Calculations
Calculating the climate impact of products based on life cycle analyses (LCA) can be challenging for many procurement professionals, leading to difficulties in accurately interpreting the results, especially if the calculations have been conducted in different ways. In such situations, here are some tips on how to interpret climate information from different bidders.
Depending on the requirements set for a climate calculation, they can be reviewed in different ways. Generally, the person commissioning the climate calculation needs to review it to assess whether it has been carried out according to the specified requirements and whether the results seem reasonable. It is often difficult for the commissioner to have full transparency in the calculation, and the level of detail in the review can vary depending on the available documentation.
Therefore, it is important to consider this issue when setting requirements and consider how the review should be conducted. Thus, it is advised to include reporting requirements for what should be provided, including supporting documentation. Ideally, all bidders/projects should present the main results in the same way, for example in a results template, and then attach more detailed results and supporting documents from the calculation tool used.
The results template can include information such as the calculation tool used, coverage, climate impact, and the percentage of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) if this is a specified requirement. It is recommended to use Excel as the template, making it easy to transfer the results into a consolidated document that can be used as a basis for their review.
The review can then be conducted in several parts, which may partially overlap and depend on how the calculation was specified:
- Verify that the overall reporting has been completed according to the set requirements.
- Review the calculation and the plausibility of its results. To facilitate this review, there is a suggested review checklist in Chapter 5 of the "Vägledning – Klimatkrav vid upphandling av byggprojekt, version 2.01.
External link, opens in new window. - If the requirements refer to "Anvisningar för LCA-beräkning av byggprojekt2 External link, opens in new window." from IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, the review should include ensuring these have been met.
- Review other project-specific requirements, such as against a threshold value or percentage of EPDs.
Example
In a procurement it was required that bidders perform a climate calculation during the bidding phase. The calculation must follow IVL's general instructions for LCA calculation of construction projects (see point 3 above). It was clarified that only instructions 1-4, 7-11, and 14 apply when calculating at the bidding stage. Additionally, there is a requirement that the percentage of EPDs in the calculation must be at least 50%, and the overall result should be presented in an attached Excel file, see Table 1. The bidder must also attach a complete report describing how each instruction was met and extracts from the calculation tool.
Contractor | Tool | GFA (m²) | Climate Impact A1-A5 | Percentage of EPDs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
After the bidding period ended, the commissioner received four bids that needed to be reviewed. The commissioner creates a consolidated review document where each bidder’s results are copied from the results template. Additionally, the commissioner adds columns for the parts that need to be checked according to the project’s requirements, see example in Table 2.
In the example, the commissioner finds that bidders 1 and 3 have reported everything except for a few specific instructions that are marked in red. For these, the commissioner writes a comment for additional information. Furthermore, bidder 2, among other things, did not report according to the requirements, and the results from bidder 4 do not match the results summary and the attached report.
Table 2 - Review Summary
By creating this review summary, the commissioner can then contact each bidder and send comments for additional information. Once the additional information is received, the review summary is updated accordingly.