2024CARB__ACC_II_-_RFI_-_Q_A_-_Responses.pdf

Question and Answer Set #1

CARB – 2024CARB_ ACC II-RFI002: Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II - ZEV Regulation Tracking System

# Pg# Section# Question Detail

1 QUESTION: Can the state select a vendor for only a subset of the objectives they bid on?

4 RESPONSE: This RFI is solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute a solicitation. A contract will not be awarded based on this RFI.

2 QUESTION: What resources will be dedicated to this project? Will there be a dedicated, full-time Product Owner?

RESPONSE: Yes, there will be a dedicated, full-time Product Owner.

3 QUESTION: Where do you want hosting costs if you expect the vendor to provide the hosting environment?

RESPONSE: Applications must be hosted on CARB’s infrastructure and will be covered by CARB.

4 QUESTION: Does the budget include operations and maintenance costs? If not, is there a budget for these costs?

RESPONSE: Yes, the budget includes operations and maintenance costs.

5 QUESTION: Whose staff is being referred to in “subject matter expert staff members”?

RESPONSE: Advanced Clean Cars: Zero Emission Vehicle Regulations Program

6 QUESTION: Who are the “program teams”?

RESPONSE: Advanced Clean Cars: Zero Emission Vehicle Regulations Program

7 QUESTION: What is the state’s definition of Key Personnel?

RESPONSE: The Contractor's offered staff member(s) and any proposed substitute staff member(s) are considered "Key Staff

Personnel" and subject to various requirements and criteria as set forth by CARB.

8 QUESTION: Is there an electronic submission option?

5 RESPONSE: Responses to this RFI must be submitted via e-mail, preferably in the native file format of Microsoft Word, to the State’s contact listed in Section D – Contact Information and must include the following information in the email subject line:

2024CARB_ ACC II-RFI002

9 QUESTION: Are the bullet points listed under Evaluation and award in order of priority?

4 RESPONSE: This RFI is solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute a solicitation. A contract will not be awarded based on this RFI.

10 8 “and still has some significant gaps and underlying issues which require extensive staff time to analyze and rectify”

QUESTION: Can you share some examples of gaps and issues?

RESPONSE: Some gaps and issues include inconsistent account balances across different pages, specific conditions being toggled for California and all §177 states instead of one, manual corrections in the backend even though a specific condition is toggled, and the inability to check for duplicative reporting.

11 8 “manufacturers in California and the §177 states will be reporting an unprecedented volume of data”

QUESTION: Do you have any estimation of the scale of the data volume increase?

RESPONSE: We do not have an estimation, but the data volume will increase drastically as a result of reporting transitioning from an aggregated level (i.e., reporting by total number of vehicles delivered for sale for a specific make/model) to an individual level (i.e., reporting each vehicle delivered for sale by vehicle identification number) in the proposed reporting system.

12 QUESTION: When do you expect the ACC II ZEV system to be launched?

RESPONSE: We expect the ACC II ZEV reporting system to be launched early fall 2026.

13 10 “The proposed reporting system would facilitate compliance both for California and §177 states, and should include at minimum the following:”

QUESTION: Have any stakeholder interviews or research been conducted into the user needs for a new reporting system?

RESPONSE: Yes, both auto manufacturers and the §177 states have expressed retaining a single, seamless web user interface. This creates consistency with how reporting is done across all the §177 states and allows auto manufacturers to report compliance for California and §177 states through one interface. The §177 states participated in an ad hoc workgroup led by California to co-develop the functional requirements.

14 10 “The proposed reporting system would facilitate compliance both for California and §177 states, and should include at minimum the following:”

QUESTION: Can the state provide a list of priority audiences/users for the web user interface?

RESPONSE: The primary users will be auto manufacturers, California, and §177 states that administer the ACC II ZEV regulation.

15 8 “Fifteen states, including New York, New Jersey, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, Oregon, Vermont, Colorado, Connecticut, Washington, Minnesota, Nevada, Virginia, and New Mexico, have adopted

QUESTION: The RFI notes that fi een states have adopted California’s current ACC I ZEV regula ons. Does the state an cipate using exis ng pa erns or processes from any of them for this system?

California’s current ACC

I ZEV”

RESPONSE: We do not anticipate using existing patterns or processes from the states listed.

16 Functional req NFM-02 QUESTION: Does the state have a design system or reusable code already created for the interface, that is used across other comparable CARB systems?

RESPONSE: CARB has existing .NET applications that could be used as a basis for future applications. CARB also has code and UI standards to guide development.