Site home » EPP: Environmental Purchasing » Nontoxic cleaners are effective

Procuring Green Cleaners: Minnesota’s Experience

In 1997-1998, for the first time, the state of Minnesota incorporated environmental and public health specifications into the state cleaning supplies contract. By evaluating and rating cleaning products, the state hopes to better safeguard the health of custodial workers, building occupants and the environment.

Background

The state contract for cleaning supplies is widely used by state agencies and local governments in Minnesota. In the last two years, nearly $2 million of traditional cleaning products were purchased through the contract. The contract is managed by the Materials Management Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration, which serves as the state's central purchaser.

In the spring of 1997, the Department of Administration assembled a group to help evaluate the expiring state contract for cleaning supplies. Users of cleaners — primarily custodians and state agency procurement officers — were asked to make recommendations for improving this contract. This group eventually agreed to the following procurement goals for the new state cleaners contract:

Expand the selection of cleaners.
Develop environmental standards that reduce the use and disposal of hazardous chemicals and improve the working conditions for custodial staff and building occupants.
Ensure product performance.

Environmental Work Group: Developing criteria

Because incorporating environnmental and health criteria into the state contract was new, separate work groups were formed to develop both environmental and performance criteria. The Environmental Work Group worked intensely for three months to investigate and design criteria for environmentally preferable cleaners. The committee consulted with local experts, state toxicologists and health officials, and reviewed specifications being developed by other government entities, such as the city of Santa Monica, California, and the state of Massachusetts. Other organizations' standards for cleaners were considered, including Green Seal and the Washington Toxics Coalition.

Guided by these resources, criteria were developed to evaluate the products in order of these concerns.

Human health and safety. Since building maintenance crews are frequently exposed to chemicals in cleaning products, preference was given to products that minimize risks to human safety. Vendors received higher points for products containing ingredients that are not highly toxic, cancer-causing, flammable, or prone to cause serious skin irritation, respiratory problems or damage nasal membranes.
Ecological stressors. Because the chemicals in many cleaning products end up in local wastewater systems, and eventually in Minnesota's rivers and lakes, preference was also given to products that minimize the impact on our environment. In addition, products received higher points for using plant-based ingredients because they are a renewable resource. Points were awarded for avoiding phosphates and substances that contribute to ozone depletion.
Packaging. Preference was given to products sold in reusable and/or recycled content packaging. A few points were also given to products not sold in aerosol containers because punctured or half-empty aerosols can increase flammability.
Products with synthetic dyes and fragrances were avoided to limit potential allergic reactions or skin irritations.

For a more detailed look at Minnesota's criteria, read Evaluating "Green" Cleaners: Minnesota's Vendor Certification of Environmental Attributes.

Evaluation and approval of products for state contract

In May 1997, bid packets for the cleaning contract were sent to vendors. Products were to be scored based on environmental criteria and cleaning performance.

The environmental criteria were transformed into an environmental certification form. Bidders were given roughly two months to complete and return the environmental forms to the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Vendors were required to certify the information they provided was accurate and true or else risk penalty.

In the fall, the responses were reviewed and scored. Each question on the form was assigned a point value. For products to pass based on their environmental and health attributes, a minimum score of 60 points (out of 90) was needed. Because this was a new process, environmental reviewers met with each vendor once the scoring had been completed to inform them of the results and explain how products were scored.
At the same time products were being evaluated for their environmental attributes, other state agencies were testing products to determine their effectiveness in cleaning. Similarly, the products had to score 60 out of 90 on their functional performance or they were disqualified.

The Department of Administration tabulated final scores and developed a list of environmentally preferable products. A final letter was sent to vendors requesting them to bid on pricing and service for the products and brands specified. The state approved all bids submitted.

A wide range of products were tested, including toilet bowl cleaners and disinfectants, deodorant products, various bathroom cleaners, sanitizers, glass cleaners, detergents, furniture polish, and soaps. The Department of Administration provided this summary of the environmental and performance scores for tested cleaning supplies:

Ranking of Environmental and Performance for Cleaning Supplies (2001)

Project result: A new state contract for cleaners

In February 1998, the contract was finalized allowing state agencies and public entities to buy from 33 categories of cleaning products, including all purpose cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners, floor care products, deodorizers, disinfectants, furniture and glass cleaners, and soaps.

Lessons learned

With the cleaning contract finalized, several lessons can be learned from the experiences of the Minnesota work group.

Developing environmental specifications is a cooperative effort.
In Minnesota, the partnership between the purchasing department and state environmental agencies proved to be a positive experience. Given the heavy workload of purchasers and the complexity involved in measuring environmental and health risks, developing specifications can be a challenge.

If possible, enlist the help of a chemical engineer, preferably with a background in reverse engineering or the formulation of cleaners. Environmental, health and safety staff can also serve as a resource to purchasers, offering guidance on setting criteria. In return, these agencies gain a better understanding of the procurement process.
Clear and steady communication is key.
It is essential to keep all stakeholders informed of changes made to the bid specifications. Stakeholders include purchasers, custodians, vendors, and any other parties involved in developing the environmental criteria. Establish a method for updating and checking in with the stakeholders on a regular basis. Also, purchasers may want to hold a bidder's conference to familiarize vendors and their chemists with the bid process and the new specifications.
Allow sufficient time to evaluate products.
Determine the potential number of bids, the time needed to conduct an environmental review of each bid, and how many reviewers are available. Also, allow time to meet as a group to review and tabulate the results. Minnesota's six reviewers felt that two and-a-half months was an adequate amount of time to evaluate the environmental attributes of nearly 400 products submitted by 23 vendors.

At least three to four months is suggested for performance testing. It is also advised that vendors provide training during the trials.
Where possible, ask for verification of environmental attributes.
Minnesota required vendors to submit Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and labels to help support their environmental and health claims. In some cases, these documents provided little information, making it a challenge to interpret certain data. To help verify claims, buyers may want to require vendors to submit lab tests or other documentation. Another option is to request inert ingredients be disclosed. Know that requesting disclosure is controversial and requires strict confidentiality.
Select a system for rating products.
A point system assigns a value to the environmental characteristics of a product, with the total number of points representing an overall environmental rating of the product. The overall score can then be used to compare and eliminate products. A pass/fail system eliminates a product based on a single environmental attribute.

The city of Santa Monica used a combination of both rating systems. Minnesota chose to use a point system, believing this provides greater flexibility in selecting products. On the other hand, a consequence of using this system is that some products with negative attributes will pass under the point system.
Continue to improve on evaluating the toxicity of commercial cleaners.
Minnesota found that evaluating the lethal dose for ingestion, inhalation, and contact with the bare skin had its limitations. Some vendors had difficulty producing data and some chemists argue that this is not the best method of measuring overall exposure risks.
Ensure that products are scored consistently.
To make vendor responses more uniform for product comparison, Minnesota required vendors to apply the environmental and health criteria to their product in its concentrated form. Some purchasers may want to go a step further and define concentrate, since the mixtures can vary anywhere from 20 to 80 percent water. To make accurate price comparisons, it is recommended that purchasers analyze the cost-per-application.
Continue to improve the selection process.
New ideas and challenges continue to emerge about the best methods for selecting environmentally preferable cleaners. Explore different options and learn from other efforts.

Updated July 2000