Executive Order 14057 is no longer an active executive order. EO 14148, issued January 20, 2025, expressly revoked it. Federal facility plans that still cite EO 14057 as their current authority need to be reviewed. [^1]

That review should trace each obligation to its actual source. The revocation of one executive order does not establish that every energy evaluation, commissioning activity, or contract deliverable previously discussed alongside it has disappeared.

For facility managers, the practical task is to update the authority behind the work while keeping a clear record of what remains required.

Begin with the correct policy status

EO 14057 was issued in December 2021 under the title “Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability.” FedCenter now labels its reference page “EO 14057 (Revoked).” Its targets should be described as historical when discussing that order. [^1] [^2]

An archived plan can still explain the origin of an initiative. It should not be used, without further review, as evidence that an executive target remains operative today. Date the document and identify the authority supporting the current action.

The same discipline applies to temporary regulatory stays. A notice announcing a time-limited stay is not enough to establish the rule’s status after that period ends. For a project governed by a specific regulation, confirm the applicable text, effective dates, and agency implementation before writing the scope.

Keep statutory requirements visible

EISA Section 432’s covered-facility framework is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 8253(f), as amended. DOE continues to publish implementation guidance addressing evaluations, identified efficiency measures, and performance contracting under that statute. Those requirements have their own legal source; EO 14148’s revocation of EO 14057 did not repeal the statute. [^3] [^4]

For operational planning, maintain the facility’s evaluation date, responsible energy manager, identified measures, implementation status, and supporting performance records. Apply the statutory exceptions and DOE guidance to the facility rather than assuming every building has an identical commissioning scope.

An agency-wide summary is useful, but it should be possible to trace it back to the relevant facilities and their records.

A current compliance plan identifies the authority, the applicable facility, and the evidence needed to demonstrate completion.

Distinguish four kinds of requirements

Use a requirements register that separates statutes, regulations, agency direction, and contract obligations. For each entry, record the issuing authority, version or effective date, applicability, responsible person, required evidence, and next review trigger.

This is a recommended management method. It prevents a change in one document from being treated as an automatic change to unrelated requirements.

For an existing contract, ask the contracting officer to identify the effect of any policy change on the awarded requirements. FAR 1.602-2 limits a COR’s authority to change contract terms. An editorial article, a revised internal checklist, or an informal project conversation is not a substitute for authorized contract administration. [^5]

For a new acquisition, align the statement of work with the requirements actually applicable at solicitation and award. Avoid copying historical policy language into a new scope simply because it appears in an older template.

Preserve a defensible operating case

Commissioning should also have a clear technical purpose. FEMP describes commissioning as verification of building performance against design intent and owner needs, and identifies documentation and operator preparation as part of the process. [^6]

Translate that purpose into deliverables the facility can use. Identify the systems to be evaluated, the operating conditions to be considered, the evidence needed to substantiate a finding, and the method for verifying corrections. Record open issues rather than allowing a policy discussion to obscure an unresolved operating problem.

Keep compliance evidence and estimated savings distinct. An evaluation’s completion does not demonstrate that every recommended correction was implemented. A forecast does not demonstrate measured savings. Use separate status fields so that both questions can be answered accurately.

Update the plan and the records together

Start with documents that influence decisions: the capital plan, evaluation schedule, acquisition templates, commissioning scope, and reporting instructions. Replace outdated citations and retain a short change history explaining why the authority changed.

Then reconcile the project records. Confirm that completed work, pending actions, and reporting entries describe the same scope. Where agency direction remains unclear, identify the specific question for the responsible program or contracting office rather than assuming either continuation or cancellation.

Federal facility performance depends on more than a policy headline. A current plan connects the applicable authority with funded work, verifiable deliverables, and staff who can operate the resulting systems.