Questions and Answers
Energy Efficiency Target Setting Technical Support
RPF-16-803
- The total possible points for all technical and cost categories only sums up to 90, not 100 (as indicated by the “Total Possible Maximum Score”). Can you please clarify this discrepancy?
Answer: The scoring criteria were modified to total to 100 possible points. Please see Addendum #2.
- The scoring criterion lists “Approach to Tasks in Scope of Work” twice. Once on page 21, worth 5 points and again on page 23, worth 7 points. If they are meant to be two separate categories, how are they different? What is the total score attributed to “Approach”?
Answer: The scoring sheet was amended to reduce redundancy. Please see Addendum #2.
- For the evaluation of ODC mark-up (discussed on page 26), is the CEC excluding mark-up on labor for this evaluation criteria? For example, can a firm charge an overall 50% mark-up on labor rates but 0% mark-up on other direct costs and still be awarded the full 5 points?
Answer: ODC mark-up does not include mark-up on labor. It only includes mark-up on other costs, such as travel, materials, miscellaneous costs, subcontractors, and equipment. Fully loaded labor rates are captured on Att 7a.
- There is significant opportunity for confusion when filling out Attachment 7. Attachment 7 has multiple hidden tabs (including Travel and Materials) some of which have reference errors (Category Budget). The Direct Labor tab allows for more job classifications than those listed in Attachment 7b. Can the CEC please provide a version of Attachment 7 that only has tabs bidders are expected to fill out, does not include any hidden tabs, is internally consistent in its use of job classifications, and is free of excel reference errors?
Answer: Attachment 7 was amended to reduce confusion. Please see Addendum #2. Hidden tabs will still exist. Applicants should only fill out visible tabs.
- Within Attachment 7, the tab “Att 7a Loaded Rate Calculation” has what might be an error in Column O. The two example calculations seem correct, but starting in row 4, the equation seems to refer to the wrong row for the profit column.
Answer: The calculation error on Att 7a will be corrected in Addendum #2.
- Will presentation be posted?
Answer: Yes.
- Can there be a prime contractor with a sub-contractor?
Answer: Yes. This is a prime contract. The prime contractor may add as many sub-contractors as needed to cover the work requested under the scope of work.
- Will participating in this solicitation preclude a contractor from submitting a proposal under any EPIC program solicitations?
Answer: No, participating in this solicitation will not preclude the contractor from submitting a proposal under any EPIC solicitation.
- Does a conflict occur between Tasks 3 and 4?
Answer: No. For both Task 3 and 4 a contractor shall assist the Energy Commission staff in technical review of the methodologies, assumptions, and energy efficiency savings estimates and provide recommendations for improvement. The difference between the two tasks lies in the meaning of “energy efficiency savings potential and estimates of additional achievable” mentioned in Task 3 and “evaluated, measured, and verified savings” brought up in Task 4.
- Are hours to be estimated annually or over the life of the contract?
Answer: Hours should be estimated over the life of the contract. However, this is a work authorization contract, so actual work and hours will be determined at the time the work authorization is prepared.
- Are match funds required?
Answer: No, match funds are not required.
- Is California participation required?
Answer: No, California participation is not required under this solicitation.
- Why are classifications limited?
Answer: The Direct Labor worksheet allows for a broader range of job classifications and titles within a general classification in Column C. Att 7b Total Exp Labor Cost asks for the maximum rate that will be used for a general classification. The maximum rate for the applicant’s highest level of job classification/title within the general classification should be used on Att 7b.
- Will you consider an extension on the deadline to submit proposals?
Answer: The application deadline will be extended. Addendum #1 has been released with the new deadline information.
- Can the CEC provide a summary or public source detailing the demand reduction and energy savings goals representing the cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers by January 1, 2030 (statewide and utility-level totals)?
Answer: Please see the Framework for Establishing the Senate Bill 350 Energy Efficiency Savings Doubling Target at the following link: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sb350/doubling_efficiency_savings/ . This link is located on the right hand side of the web page under Reports, Fact Sheets.
- For utilities other than the three electric IOU’s would their targets just be adopted?
Answer: IOUs energy savings goals are adopted by California Public Utilities Commission. Public Utilities Code §9505(c) requires individual POUs within 60 days to report electricity savings targets to the Energy Commission, and the basis for establishing those targets. The Energy Commission reviews and assesses POUs targets and makes recommendations for adjustments.
- What if research indicated that it was not cost-effective to double the AAEE estimate in Table 26 of the California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, 2015-2025?
Answer: The Energy Commission realizes that the doubling of energy efficiency savings projections of that study while satisfying cost-effectiveness, feasibility, and other constraints of the legislation will be difficult. However, the CEC must explore all opportunities for major increases in projected energy efficiency savings and make recommendations on how best to approach the statutory goal.
- Is the consultant expected to develop a plan to double the energy efficiency saving with specific new or expanded programs, utility program budgets, codes, and building standards identified? Or, simply do a multiplication to double the AAEE or existing levels of energy efficiency for the electric IOUs, and add-in some numbers for the cooperatives, municipals, and gas utilities?
Answer: No. The consultant is not expected to develop a plan, although they may be asked to do some analysis related to the target setting. Energy Commission has developed and published a framework paper on how the doubling shall occur.
- Does CHP qualify as an energy efficiency measure in California for the purpose of setting this target? [CDH suggest their experience in CHP (cogeneration) technical potential studies may be relevant.]
Answer: Combined heat and power was not considered to be an energy efficiency measure from the conventional point of view. Although CHP may increase total useful energy resulting from fuel combustion, it does not appear to qualify as an “end-use” as defined in PRC 25310(a).
- Can the CEC please provide links to the potential studies and models referenced under Task 3, if available?
Answer: For publicly owned utilities see the following reports: Energy Efficiency in California’s Public Power Sector: A 2017 Status Report (March 2017 v2] and Energy Efficiency in California’s Public Power Sector: A 2013 Status Report (March 2013) at the following link: http://www.ncpa.com/policy/reports/energy-efficiency/
For investor-owned utilities see the following link: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=2013
21. Please refer to the table on Page 3 of the RFP. Please confirm that the term includes three calendar years, but is for 23 months or just under two years.
Answer: We anticipate that the contract will be initiated sometime this summer. All products must be completed by March 2019; however, the contract will expire June 2019. This three month period allows for processing the final invoice and releasing retention.
22. Please confirm that the not-to-exceed budget of $500,000 per fiscal year is firm and cannot be redistributed across the three years to better align with the number of months of engagement in each year (2016/2017 includes 8 months of work, 2017/2018 includes 12 months of work and 2018/2019 includes 3 months of work).
Answer: As indicated in the RFP manual, $500,000 will be allocated per fiscal year, depending on approval of the Governor’s budget. This money can be spent over the course of the entire 3-year contract and does not have to be spent in the fiscal year. So, you can redistribute the money over the term of the contract.
23. Are the expected hours by task shown on pages 8-14 of the RFP flexible or firm? Should cost estimates reflect the expected hours by task?
Answer: Each contractor should bid on the hours per task. However, this is a work authorization based contract, and as such, both the work and the hours required for each task will be defined at the time the work authorization is written.
24. Do bidders need to bid on all tasks or can they bid on some tasks?
Answer: We are seeking a prime contractor than can bid on all of the tasks listed. If there are tasks that the prime contractor cannot perform, they can hire subcontractors. The subcontractor(s) must provide the same information about their qualifications as the prime contractor.
25. Does the CEC plan to make a single award?
Answer: Yes, the Energy Commission will hire only one prime contractor under this RFP. See answer to question 24
26. For Task 2 - Developing EE Savings Targets: Please clarify whether the CEC perceives any conflict of interest in providing the support and advisory services in facilitating the setting of the targets and providing energy efficiency consulting services to:
a. the CPUC
b. the IOUs
c. the POUs
Answer: No. The contractor shall provide assistance with developing strategies to establish annual energy efficiency savings targets and help assess feasibility and usefulness of these strategies beyond traditional utility incentive programs in collaboration with the CPUC, IOUs and POUs.
27. For Task 4, what EM&V studies and practices does the CEC anticipate requesting review?
Answer: California Measurement Advisory Council (CALMAC) contains investor-owned utility reports. Publicly owned utilities publish their own reports on California Municipal Utility Association (CMUA) or Northern California Public Authority websites.
28. For Task 4, would the CEC accept a bid team of a prime contractor that performs EM&V studies on behalf of the CPUC if that prime contractor also engages subcontractors to independently provide services under this task if the EM&V study to review is one that the prime contractor participated on?
Answer: See answer to question number 24.
29. For Task 5, would a contractor providing services under this task be conflicted out of follow-on work related to the implementation of any identified measures and methods recommended? For example, if the selected awardee recommends a specific method for measuring progress towards the SB350 goal, would they then be conflicted out of subsequently applying the recommended method to demonstrate progress on behalf of an IOU or POU?
Answer: No.
30. The Budget form lists the Labor Classification "Analyst" twice. May we use that as a tier of Analyst and Senior Analyst? Similarly, we would like to have the labor category Junior Engineer/Scientist in addition to the Engineer and Scientist positions already listed.
Answer: The second occurrence of the general classification “Analyst” has been removed. See answer to question 13.
31. Under Section IV the Commission outlines the scoring scale that the Evaluation Committee will use in bidder selection. The points for the criteria sum to 90, while maximum points possible equal 100. Is it the intent of the CEC that the remaining 10 points comes from the "Business Participation Programs" Incentive points?
Answer: The remaining 10 points are not drawn from the “Business Participation Programs” incentive points. The criteria table under Section IV should add up to 100 points. See answer to question 1.
32. Regarding Task 8, please confirm that the CEC is interested in strategies to switch FROM natural gas TO electricity (“the substitution of natural gas for electricity”) and not FROM electricity TO natural gas.
Answer: Yes, the CEC interprets the language of PRC 25310(d)(10) to mean that an end-use is shifted from natural gas to electricity to both save energy and GHG emissions.
34. We see that the CEC is looking for assistance in providing input to a variety of design and evaluation tasks being performed by others.Could you please confirm that the evaluation work that the selected contractor will review involves CPUC evaluation reports?
Answer: SB 350 necessarily requires the CEC to become involved in energy efficiency planning processes in setting targets, and in reporting and EM&V activities in the monitoring of progress toward targets. Since CPUC-supervised energy efficiency activities are a large share of the expected means of satisfying the SB 350 EE goal, it is inevitable the contractor will be involved in review of CPUC energy efficiency activities at some level.
35. Does the CEC see any conflicts of interest for firms who are currently leading or participating in evaluation work for the CPUC, or potential study work for the IOUs or CPUC,in conducting this work for the CEC? If yes, please provide guidance as to how these conflicts may be addressed (if at all).
Answer: No. See answer to question 9
36. It appears as though the Evaluation Criteria table providing possible points only allots 90 points instead of the supposed 100 points. Should the criteria points add up to 100 points?
Answer: See answer to question 1.
37. “Approach to Tasks in Scope of Work” is listed twice in the Evaluation criteria table, once with 5 possible points and once with 7 possible points. Is this intentional?
Answer: See answer to question 2.
38. Do attachments 2, 5, 9, and 10 need to be submitted by prime and subcontractors or only prime contractors?
Answer: Attachments 2, 5, 9, and 10 only need to be completed by the prime contractor.
39. Are the estimated hours in the RFP on an annual basis or for the entire lifetime of the contract?
Answer: See answers to questions 21, 22, and 23.
40. Does the 2.75 year period of performance, from July 2017 (indicated as the Contract Start Date) through March 2019 (indicated as the Contract Termination Date), impact the number of hours or funding available in any of the three contract years?
Answer: No, the amount of $500,000 is per fiscal year and can be expended within the timeframe of the 3-year contract.
41. Would a bidder be conflicted out of performing the scope of Task 3 if they are the primary authors of the current potential/goals study being conducted for the CPUC?