Resources
Methods and working tools for comparing green technologies, making assumptions visible and preserving the evidence behind a decision.
For: Teams that need reusable methods and working files for technology evaluation.
Key decisions on this page
Choose the tool after defining the decision
A scorecard cannot repair an unclear objective, incomplete scope or unsuitable alternatives.
Keep gates separate from preferences
A high weighted score must not cure a failed safety, capacity, legal or technical requirement.
Record evidence and uncertainty
The useful output is the documented reasoning, not only the final number or ranking.
What the Resources library is for
The Resources library provides reusable methods and spreadsheet tools for early screening, structured comparison and procurement preparation. The tools help teams state what is being compared, define mandatory requirements, use a common cost boundary, record evidence and keep uncertainty visible. They do not make a site-specific engineering, legal, financial or procurement decision automatically.
A good workflow begins with the decision and the people who own it. Define the outcome, operating context, alternatives, time horizon and non-negotiable requirements before assigning weights or entering prices. The tools are designed to be adapted; their default criteria are prompts, not universal priorities.
Choose the resource that matches the task
The approved Resource records use controlled URL namespaces without creating intermediate Methodologies or Worksheets pages.
Comparison Methodology
Define the decision, gates, criteria, evidence, cost boundary, uncertainty and record of judgment.
Technology Evaluation Scorecard
Compare up to three options while keeping mandatory gates and evidence confidence visible.
Total Cost of Ownership Worksheet
Compare costs and credits over a common analysis period using discounted cash flows.
Vendor Comparison Worksheet
Normalize proposal scope, evidence, exclusions, commercial terms and whole-life cost.
Tool-selection guide
| Situation | Start here | Then use |
|---|---|---|
| The team has several technology approaches but no agreed criteria. | Comparison Methodology | Technology Evaluation Scorecard after gates and criteria are approved. |
| The options have different purchase, operating or replacement costs. | TCO guide and worksheet | Sensitivity cases and the relevant technology cost page. |
| Vendor bids use different scope and commercial assumptions. | Vendor Comparison Worksheet | Proposal-comparison guide and clarification record. |
| An emerging technology has limited deployment evidence. | Frontier Technology Maturity Framework | A Frontier profile and project-specific evidence plan. |
| The project needs an approval-ready decision record. | Green Technology Business Case | TCO, scorecard and source evidence as supporting records. |
A disciplined workflow
- Define the decision. State the outcome, scope, operating conditions, decision date, alternatives and decision owner.
- Set mandatory gates. Identify safety, capacity, code, data, security or operating requirements that cannot be traded.
- Select meaningful criteria. Use factors that distinguish the real options and reflect the organization’s priorities.
- Normalize evidence and cost. Compare the same units, service level, analysis period, assumptions and responsibility boundary.
- Test uncertainty. Identify assumptions capable of changing the result and run proportionate alternative cases.
- Record the judgment. Preserve evidence, exceptions, tradeoffs, approvals and the reason the selected course was reasonable at the decision date.
How to use scores responsibly
Weighted scoring is useful when several acceptable options involve genuine tradeoffs. It is not a substitute for requirements or due diligence. A failed mandatory gate should be resolved or the option should be removed. Weights should be approved before evaluators see the final scores where practical, and material scores should cite a proposal, calculation, test, clarification or reference.
The worksheet output is decision support, not a certificate. If a small weight change reverses the ranking, the result is sensitive and the uncertainty should be discussed rather than hidden.
Cost models need a common basis
The TCO worksheet uses a screening structure for capital, implementation, recurring, replacement, end-of-life and credit items. The user must still choose a consistent currency, price basis, analysis period, escalation and discount treatment. Nominal cash flows should not be combined with a real discount rate without adjustment, and incentives should be verified for the project and decision date.
Resource governance and versioning
Each downloadable tool includes a version and update date. A completed project copy should record the source assumptions and should not be silently overwritten when FGT issues a later version. The Resource page and relevant methodology should explain material changes. Broken downloads, formula errors and inaccessible tables are release blockers.
The emerging-technology pathway uses the Frontier Technology Maturity Framework. It complements rather than replaces technical due diligence by separating concept, demonstration and repeatable commercial evidence.
Where to continue
Apply the resources to the relevant technical hub: Energy Systems, Software & Data, Buildings & Industry, Mobility Infrastructure or Frontier. Use Project Economics and Procurement when the work is moving into approval, vendor comparison or contracting.
Review the decision record, not only the workbook
A completed worksheet should be understandable to someone who did not build it. Keep the source files, clarification responses, assumptions and approval record with the model. When a project is revisited, confirm whether prices, standards, operating conditions and evidence have changed before reusing the result. The Corrections and Updates policy explains how FGT handles material changes to the published tools and guidance.
Scope and limitations
These tools are general decision aids. They do not replace site-specific professional analysis, organizational procurement rules or applicable law. Verify calculations, formulas, source data, standards, tariffs, incentives and specialist requirements before relying on an output.
Sources and evidence
These sources establish the framework and current evidence boundary for this hub. Detailed child guides use additional page-specific evidence.
- Life Cycle Costing Manual for FEMP — National Institute of Standards and Technology
- Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide — U.S. Government Accountability Office
- FAR 15.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors — Acquisition.gov
- Technology Readiness Assessment Guide — U.S. Government Accountability Office
- Project Control authority: approved project authority, page map, complete page criteria and page-rules addendum — Future Green Technology
Reviewed and updated 29 June 2026. Organizational author: Future Green Technology, published by Zenith Star Media.