Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Equipment Good Practice Guidelines for Environmental Sustainability: Review of current practice in Govt³ agencies

Executive Summary

1 Introduction

2 Methodology

3 Equipment volume

4 Equipment acquisition and disposal

5 Procurement

6 Sustainable use

7 Security cleansing

8 Hardware disposal

Appendix 1: Govt³ agencies

Appendix 2: Survey questionnaire

5 Procurement

The survey revealed that little or no consideration has been given to sustainability issues in government ICT procurement contracts. Some agencies have started to specify energy efficiency, such as compliance with the Energy Star label, but many simply trust their suppliers to be environmentally responsible. Few specify equipment “take-back” in procurement contracts, although many expect this service when new equipment is installed. In recent years most agencies have adopted an aggressive replacement programme for CRT monitors, with some already having fully migrated to liquid crystal displays (LCDs).¹ Within the next 12-24 months it is expected that the remaining CRTs will have been replaced.

Desktop printers are steadily being replaced with more centralised multi-function devices (MFDs), typically one per floor in the larger offices. Although there is some resistance from users in terms of reduced printing convenience, the benefits of reduced costs for printing, maintenance and management mean this trend is likely to continue. In addition, most MFDs are effectively leased from suppliers, who charge a per-page price that covers all printing and maintenance costs (as well as equipment replacement when necessary).

Despite the general absence of sustainability issues in current ICT contracts, all agencies are willing to incorporate clauses into future tender documents and supply contracts, and are seeking guidance on what is most appropriate.

Under the Government’s sustainability work programme, it is expected that government agencies will give more weighting to sustainability issues when evaluating competitive bids, given the “total cost of ownership” and “value for money” requirements of the procurement statement of good practice issued by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General.² The good practice statement makes it clear that “total cost of ownership” and “value for money” do not necessarily mean selecting the lowest price.

---

---

[ Previous|Next