When/why do we consider decommissioning a filter? Reasons might include:

1. School closes  - site becomes “out of scope – closed or merged” in Salesforce
2. School relocates (may need to figure out some additional next steps under this scenario) – site becomes “out of scope – closed or merged” in Salesforce
3. School decides they no longer want to use the Splash filter (i.e. they have different option they prefer) – site becomes “In Scope – Decommissioned” in Salesforce
4. Splash reasons for decommissioning a filter:
   • Needs to be articulated in MOU and as part of Splash site level sustainability strategy – i.e. misuse, abuse, not upholding responsibilities or commitments related to filter – these consequences need to be articulated ahead of time to the sites – site would become “in Scope – Decommissioned”
   •  Splash decides that water quality improves such that filter no longer needed – site would become “Out of Scope – Standards Met”

Seek appropriate approvals:

1. Infrastructure and/or Sustainability teams in-country must contact their Seattle programs leads to explain/discuss issue (e-mail is fine)
2. Infrastructure and Sustainability leads in Seattle are jointly responsible for making recommendation/preliminary decisions(technical and/or programmatic) – based on info from their teams and considering each circumstance
3. They make recommendation to Program/Project leadership (either Regional/Country Director, Program Manager, or Splash Programs Director – depending on structure), who must agree with recommendation (to ensure there are no governmental or donor reasons that need to be considered)
4. Infrastructure and Sustainability leads in Seattle then flow permission for decommissioning back down to their teams (and also share information with broader program team in that country, so all are aware of decision – or this information could be shared by Country Director/Program Manager).

Consider what happens to filter from an inventory perspective:

1. Ideally - Filter should be taken back into Splash inventory, repaired if necessary, and then we can re-use it at new site. (We need to confirm this is allowable in each country context.)

Update Salesforce (site page AND filter page):

1. Filter needs to be decommissioned on filter page in SF
2. The site page also needs to be updated with these details (see account/project status notes above) – update campus level if needed – include comprehensive change notes to document the situation
3. We want this to show up on programs team dashboard on regular basis (based on SF reports)

Consider and discuss additional next steps with Seattle team:

1. We may need to make some additional updates to account/project status options in Salesforce – i.e. if it turns out we are decommissioning a filter but actively supporting other SOWs at that site.
2. It is important for all teams to be notified once a decision has been made to decommission a filter, and ensure there is clarity on what that means for other support at site (if applicable) and MLE visits, etc.
3. These case-by-case decisions will inform future revisions to this Standard, once we have more information about these types of scenarios and how best to handle them.