Accelerating Technology Projects in Environmental Agencies

Technology Provider Obstacles and Strategies to Overcome Them

Opportunities to accelerate the work of federal environmental agencies with technology abound. Although environmental agencies are investing billions in information technology every year, much of it currently goes to maintaining legacy systems and many programs have yet to seize the opportunity presented by embracing new technology. 

The relationship between government agencies and the ecosystem of technology providers, both private and nonprofit, is at the heart of realizing this potential. However, too often policies and processes that were not designed for engaging with technology providers slow down projects, or prevent them from ever starting.

Through our interviews with mostly smaller technology providers, we identified three findings that, if addressed, could meaningfully accelerate the pace of technology projects at environmental agencies: 

• Inefficient ways for technology providers to understand environmental agencies’ programmatic needs. 

• High administrative costs that can overwhelm the potential benefits of working with environmental agencies. 

• A patchwork of technology policies and practices that slows down or prevents projects. 

We also identified seven actionable strategies for agencies to make their relationship with technology providers more productive and inclusive. These strategies could be implemented within a single agency or as collaborative efforts among several environmental agencies or bureaus.

Strategies to overcome these obstacles

• Conduct more proactive agency market research and share that information.

  One way for agencies to reduce the time it takes to match technology providers with agency program needs is to pull in more information on technologies proactively, analyze it, and share that information across the agency or to partners, such as regulated entities. Various agencies have implemented a version of this in specific contexts. For example, GSA operates a Green Proving Ground to support national goals of achieving net zero buildings and a Pilot-to-Portfolio program that helps vet and select innovative technology, develop specifications, and obtain IT approval for solutions that help federal building managers reduce the environmental impacts of their buildings. Other studies of government IT acquisitions have also recommended more robust and continuous market research. Similar programs could be implemented for technologies that would assist environmental agencies in carrying out their missions and could include an established process to provide demos to potential government users at no cost in exchange for feedback.

• Creating consolidated digital points of entry for innovating and selling to federal environmental agencies.

  Many technology providers were daunted by the fragmented information they would have to go through to find what programs exist at an agency and how to potentially engage with staff. Consolidating this information by agency or sector could enable a technology provider to submit information once rather than “starting over” with each office, program or agency. The most recent example of an agency effort to do this is the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pathfinder website, which provides one place for any provider regardless of whether they have a product under development or ready for purchase to provide information to the VA. The submissions are reviewed by a team who then contact the companies and share information internally. Currently, information about how to work with environmental agencies on technology projects is fragmented and often relies on each technology provider to identify and track opportunities. The VA approach reduces the burden on technology providers by centralizing information and relying on agency staff to match opportunities and providers.

• Bolster liaison capacity, particularly for small providers and those with no prior interaction with the office, bureau, or agency.

  Many technology providers expressed frustration at not knowing who they could call to have their questions answered about agencies’ needs and procurement processes, especially when they did not already have contact with the agency. Others shared examples of existing liaison offices that had been helpful in working with the government. For example, one described a very proactive and responsive set of liaisons that took the time to go through a grant application with them in detail before they were even required to enter information into a government system. Some agencies, particularly those with large research and development budgets, have robust liaison functions for interacting with companies that are interested in licensing technologies developed in government labs and using them in the private sector. For example, DOD and VA hired TechLink to provide certified licensing professionals to accelerate and improve the process of identifying commercializable technologies that have been developed at their labs. A similar level of service for technology providers that want to help bring technology into the government could go a long way toward addressing the barriers outlined above.

• Use documents to communicate, internally and externally, the desired outcomes from technology projects for specific programs.

  Many technology providers found the government’s approach to IT investments opaque. Others wished for a more standardized approach to technology that would accelerate adoption of promising technologies within agencies. One way to do that is to issue a detailed publicly accessible strategy that focuses on the outcomes that agencies are seeking from technology projects for specific programs. This can help send signals to technology providers about where there might be opportunity to innovate and help align expectations internally and externally before projects begin. Examples of strategies and plans at environmental agencies do exist but many are too general to inform technology providers that want to tackle a specific environmental challenge, such as permitting restoration activities or helping to deploy forest management resources more efficiently.

• Make contracting and budgeting data more tailored and accessible.

  Maximizing the accessibility of information could help overcome some of the capacity and planning hurdles that technology providers face when working with federal environmental agencies. For example, detailing how an agency budgets for IT modernization, tracking and sharing the length of the permissions process to set expectations, or making available resources more user friendly could help. Grants and contract opportunities are searchable through centralized websites, which is good for some, but for small focused environmental technology providers it may be a disincentive to have to weed through announcements from all agencies. A more focused outlet for this information could alleviate some of the burden. Environmental agencies forecast procurements on their websites (see for example EPA’s), but even these resources use codes to categorize opportunities that many new technology providers may not be familiar with. Making resources that are more tailored or that require less knowledge of federal contracting could be a concrete way to encourage more technology providers to work with environmental agencies.

• Create additional mechanisms for recognizing success and automatically sharing experience across organizational boundaries.

  Some technology providers mentioned contributing to projects that received agency awards as a way to raise the profile of technology projects and help overcome risk aversion in government. Others mentioned reports, case studies, or guides to technologies that were shared across organizations as useful for building comfort and momentum around technology. However, many of these efforts were described as driven by a single person. Institutionalizing or automating information sharing on technology projects could help successful approaches spread faster.

• Evaluate and experiment with different agreement types to identify the most effective and to ensure that there are a variety of contracts and grants.

  Some technology providers expressed a desire for more diversity in the opportunities and agreements coming out of agencies. For example, some raised concerns about the size of contracts and grants, while others thought that concepts like modular contracting were not used to their full potential. Others suggested that agencies could diversify opportunities for nonprofits by focusing more on open data where appropriate. Some technology providers highlighted alternative clauses or approaches to working with agencies that could help navigate some of the hurdles they encounter. For example, we heard from multiple technology providers that they have tried to incorporate the process of discovering agency technology policies and practices into their agreements explicitly since this has often been an important part of their work. By not overemphasizing a single approach to implementing technology, agencies can engage more of the ecosystem of technology providers.