Published 14 October 2026 · Source-linked research prepared with AI assistance. Proposed services require an agreed scope and qualified delivery team.
A useful first question
Where does the water go, what is constrained, and which improvement is worth testing at this site?
Cooling demand creates an operating question that can be investigated with existing meters, bills and specialist knowledge. Before proposing atmospheric water capture, establish makeup, blowdown, evaporation, drift and other losses. Check which values are measured and which are assumptions. Water chemistry, heat rejection and reliability constrain any change.
Who the study serves
Campus facilities and sustainability teams, data-center operators, federal energy managers, energy-service companies and water-treatment partners.
Before quoting, confirm a budget owner, the decision the work must inform and the person who can approve data access. A funding announcement or a sector-wide problem is not a substitute for those three facts.
Define the included work
Start with remote bill/data triage. Move to a multi-tower or site-level study only when material spend or a resilience problem justifies it. Treatment selection, chemistry changes, hygiene controls, engineering design and physical installation require the appropriate specialists.
The statement of work names the included locations, available records, interviews, specialist review and deliverables. Equipment, installation, travel and continuing monitoring are separately identified where needed. A proposed planning duration is not a promise of procurement timing.
Records needed to begin
- At least one representative operating period of water and utility bills
- Makeup and blowdown meter records, treatment logs and known leaks
- Tower configuration, operating schedule and load context
- Water-quality constraints, sewer billing and reuse opportunities
- Existing service contracts, maintenance responsibilities and site requirements
Use a non-confidential description for the initial inquiry. Detailed operating records should move through an agreed access and retention process after the scope is established.
What you receive
- A water balance with measured and estimated quantities identified
- A meter, sampling and data-quality gap register
- A practical options screen including operating constraints
- A savings model with assumptions and full incremental cost
- A test and measurement plan for the most promising next step
Each finding identifies its source and limitation. Missing information becomes a visible follow-up item, rather than an inferred passing answer. Recommendations distinguish actions supported by the existing record from questions requiring field evidence.
Delivery and acceptance
The customer receives a reconcilable baseline, explicit uncertainties and a decision on whether a larger study or field test is justified. Null or modest savings are valid results. An unattributed industry average is not substituted for the site’s own economics.
- Agree the decision, scope and acceptance criteria.
- Reconcile the supplied records and identify missing evidence.
- Review the findings with the relevant technical owner.
- Deliver the baseline, action register and next-step recommendation.
Target delivery: 1–2 weeks for triage; 3–5 for a site study. Record access, site work and specialist availability can change the schedule.
What comes next
Test an agreed controls or treatment change with the existing specialist, verify savings against the baseline, and maintain water and readiness evidence.
Ask for a fixed-fee scope after the initial fit review. Proposed services are subject to delivery capacity, a named technical reviewer and written terms. The inquiry is a request to scope work; no payment or contract is created here.
Sources & further reading
- AWT: GSA Evaluations ↗Page updated 2026-09-14; underlying evaluations historical. The web page also contains old forward-looking evaluation dates. Prefer the dated underlying report when describing results. Does not predict another site's savings.
- Best Management Practice #10: Cooling Tower Management ↗Current guidance checked 2026-10-14. The cycles example assumes suitable water chemistry and operation. Never recommend a higher setpoint solely from a calculator; water-treatment specialists must establish safe operating conditions.
- Energy and Project Procurement Development Services ↗Current page checked 2026-10-14. A procurement channel, not a funding commitment. The recommendation to sell a bounded subcontract to an incumbent is Weatherhill's commercial inference.
- GSA Guidance—Alternative Water Treatment Systems for Cooling Towers ↗January 2020. Historical study costs, not current vendor quotes or generic market prices. Test-site metering differed; some baseline measures and most chiller-energy savings were not measured. Chemistry, maintenance, energy consumption, rates and location affect economics.