2026.08.07 Response to Questions Resilience Economic Analysis RFP.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFP - 07A - 202607115
- Issued by
- Maine
About this file
This file contains responses to bidder questions regarding an RFP issued by the State of Maine's Governor's Office of Policy Innovation and the Future (GOPIF) for economic analyses of climate risks and resilience investments (RFP 202607115). The RFP solicits proposals for three distinct but complementary tasks: an updated assessment of climate-related economic risks and costs to Maine; an economic impact analysis of resilience investments; and a valuation of societal benefits associated with resilience investments. Bidders may submit proposals for one, two, or all three tasks independently, with the State reserving the right to award one or multiple contracts and select different bidders for different tasks. Proposals will be scored and awarded on a task-by-task basis. The anticipated contract period runs from September 15, 2026 to February 15, 2027, with Tasks 2 and 3 expected to be completed during the initial performance period, while Task 1 may have additional timeline flexibility. The proposal deadline was August 18, 2026 at 4:00 p.m. local time, with questions due August 3, 2026 at 4:00 p.m. directed to Daniel Matz, Policy and Data Analyst.
The State has not established a not-to-exceed budget for this procurement or individual tasks, encouraging bidders to propose costs that are reasonable, cost-effective, and appropriate to fully achieve the outlined deliverables. Scoring occurs on a 100-point scale with 35 points for organizational qualifications and experience, 35 points for proposed services, and 30 points for cost, with the lowest cost proposal for each task receiving maximum cost points. Bidders must provide three years of financial statements, insurance certificates, organizational qualifications, three relevant project examples per task, subcontractor information, detailed work plans with timelines, and comprehensive cost proposals. The State is open to various methodological approaches, including different economic impact modeling platforms (IMPLAN, REMI, RIMS II, or alternatives) and valuation methods, and will work closely with selected bidders to identify and provide relevant program data, analyses, and datasets as feasible. The final report will be a public document suitable for policymakers and state leadership with a clear executive summary, full documentation of methods, assumptions, and limitations. GOPIF will ensure methodological consistency if different contractors are awarded different tasks, and no best and final offers will be accepted.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP# 202607115 - Economic Analyses of Climate Risks and Resilience Investments in Maine_Final.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question | Response |
| So that we can explore potential teaming opportunities, will a bid holders list or list of firms who have inquired be provided? Thank you. | The State welcomes applications from partnerships between entities that create new capacities or increase knowledge exchange. The State does not intend to provide a bid holder list. |
| Section E of Part I states that "The Office anticipates making one (1) or multiple awards by Task as a result of this RFP process." Are bidders required to submit proposals for all tasks, or will proposals covering only a subset of tasks be accepted? | The State may award one, two, or all Tasks. While the Tasks are complementary, each is intended to function as a standalone analysis and may be completed independently. Bidders may submit proposals for one, two, or all Tasks. The State reserves the right to award one or more contracts and may select different bidders for different Tasks. Proposals will be scored and awarded on a Task-by-Task basis. | |
| Can the State provide an anticipated budget or budget range for each Task? | The State has not established a not-to-exceed budget for this procurement or the three tasks. Bidders are encouraged to propose a cost that is reasonable, cost-effective, and appropriate to fully achieve the tasks outlined in the RFP. |
| Does the State have a preferred economic impact modeling platform (e.g., IMPLAN, REMI, RIMS II, or another framework)? | The State is open to a range of methodological approaches and encourages bidders to propose the approach they believe best fits the objectives outlined in the RFP. | |
| Does the State anticipate a full benefit-cost analysis for the selected resilience investments, or is the intent to quantify and monetize major categories of societal benefits without producing project-level benefit-cost ratios? | The State is open to a range of methodological approaches and encourages bidders to propose the approach they believe best fits the objectives outlined in the RFP. Bidders are encouraged to propose efficient, cost-effective valuation approaches, including benefit transfer techniques and other established methodologies. Primary valuation methods may be used where appropriate or necessary but are not required. The analysis should identify, quantify, and, where feasible, monetize key benefits associated with resilience investments, including but not limited to avoided economic damages and avoided public expenditures (including emergency response and recovery costs). Bidders may also propose additional benefit categories that accrue to households, businesses, communities, and state government and are relevant for policy decision-making in Maine, including, where appropriate, health-related, ecosystem services, and other social and environmental benefits. The analysis should clearly document assumptions, data sources, limitations, and uncertainty, and should present results in a manner that supports decision-making for resilience planning, investment prioritization, and funding and financing strategies. | |
| Will the specific resilience programs and investments to be evaluated be identified before contract execution, or will selection occur collaboratively with the consultant after award? | Bidders are welcome to propose resilience investments for evaluation and a rationale for their inclusion in the analyses in their proposals. Selection will occur collaboratively with the Bidder(s) after the award. | |
| Is county-level analysis the expected minimum geographic resolution where data permit, or would the State also value analyses at regional, watershed, municipal, or other geographic scales where appropriate? | The analyses may describe ranges of state-wide and county-level potential impacts or scenario-based results, based on the data available. Where appropriate or where additional data is available, the State welcomes proposals that include value analyses at regional, watershed, municipal, or other geographic scales.________________________________________ | |
| Can the State clarify which underlying datasets from previous analytical work products will be made available to awarded bidders? | GOPIF will work closely with the selected Bidder(s) to identify and make available relevant program data, analyses, and datasets, as feasible. Bidders are encouraged to identify in their proposals any specific data or information they anticipate needing to support their work, and the State will make reasonable efforts to provide such information. | |
| The RFP states that the analyses are intended to support future funding. Can you please say more about the primary contexts it expects these analyses to inform (e.g., legislative appropriations, grant applications, infrastructure prioritization)? | The analyses are intended to support planning, policy development, and funding and finance decisions related to community and infrastructure resilience in Maine. In particular, the analyses will support the Maine Climate Council's funding and financing work and recommendations. The requested analyses should: (a) improve the State's understanding of the economic risks and costs associated with climate change; (b) evaluate the economic impacts associated with resilience investments; and (c) assess the societal benefits of resilience investments, including avoided damages, avoided costs, and other relevant outcomes. | |
| Does the Governor's Office of Policy Innovation and the Future (GOPIF) have a not to exceed budget for this project? | The State has not established a not-to-exceed budget for this procurement or the three tasks. Bidders are encouraged to propose a cost that is reasonable, cost-effective, and appropriate to fully achieve the tasks outlined in the RFP. |
| Will the GOPIF provide the selected contractor will all data from the analysis in Excel format if requested, or will the contractor need to rely on results in the published PDF? | GOPIF will work closely with the selected Bidder(s) to identify and make available relevant program data, analyses, and datasets, as feasible. Bidders are encouraged to identify in their proposals any specific data or information they anticipate needing to support their work, and the State will make reasonable efforts to provide such information. | |
| Does the GOPIF have specific scenarios in mind that they would like examined? | The State is open to a range of methodological approaches. The State recognizes that not all economic and climate information needed for these assessments may be available from Maine-specific sources or may not be complete. Any modeled results are expected to be limited by data, assumptions, and structure. The awarded Bidder(s) should therefore provide information on the level of confidence and use an approach consistent with those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. | |
| Regarding the scenario analysis in Task 1, is there a minimum number of scenarios that should be considered? | The State is open to a range of methodological approaches. The State recognizes that not all economic and climate information needed for these assessments may be available from Maine-specific sources or may not be complete. Any modeled results are expected to be limited by data, assumptions, and structure. The awarded Bidder(s) should therefore provide information on the level of confidence and use an approach consistent with those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. | |
| Regarding the scenario analysis in Task 1, does the GOPIF also require sensitivity analysis of key variables (for example, economic growth or potential carbon price/tax)? | The State is open to a range of methodological approaches. The State recognizes that not all economic and climate information needed for these assessments may be available from Maine-specific sources or may not be complete. Any modeled results are expected to be limited by data, assumptions, and structure. The awarded Bidder(s) should therefore provide information on the level of confidence and use an approach consistent with those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. | |
| On page 11, the RFP states that the contractor should monetize key benefits where feasible for Task 3. Does the GOPIF wish for non-market benefits, such as equity improvements, to be monetized through economic valuation methods? | The State is open to a range of methodological approaches and encourages bidders to propose the approach they believe best fits the objectives outlined in the RFP. Bidders are encouraged to propose efficient, cost-effective valuation approaches, including benefit transfer techniques and other established methodologies. Primary valuation methods may be used where appropriate or necessary but are not required. The analysis should identify, quantify, and, where feasible, monetize key benefits associated with resilience investments, including but not limited to avoided economic damages and avoided public expenditures (including emergency response and recovery costs). Bidders may also propose additional benefit categories that accrue to households, businesses, communities, and state government and are relevant for policy decision-making in Maine, including, where appropriate, health-related, ecosystem services, and other social and environmental benefits. The analysis should clearly document assumptions, data sources, limitations, and uncertainty, and should present results in a manner that supports decision-making for resilience planning, investment prioritization, and funding and financing strategies. | |
| The RFP states the Office anticipates making "one (1) or multiple awards by Task." Can the Department confirm whether a single Bidder may submit one integrated proposal addressing multiple Tasks and be scored/awarded on a Task-by-Task basis? | The State may award one, two, or all Tasks. While the Tasks are complementary, each is intended to function as a standalone analysis and may be completed independently. Bidders may submit proposals for one, two, or all Tasks. The State reserves the right to award one or more contracts and may select different bidders for different Tasks. Proposals will be scored and awarded on a Task-by-Task basis. | |
| Can the Department clarify the extent to which this study is intended to update the 2020 analysis using a similar methodology and hazard/sector scope, versus develop a different analytical approach, hazard prioritization, or set of impact categories? | The 2020 Cost of Doing Nothing should be used as a baseline and reference point for Task 1. The State anticipates that the awarded Bidder (s)will build upon and update the prior analysis as appropriate, while considering whether changes in available data, climate projections, economic conditions, identified hazards, sectors, and analytical methodologies warrant modifications or additions to the approach. The current study is not intended to simply replicate the 2020 analysis. The contractor should identify and recommend appropriate updates to the scope, methodology, scenarios, distributional analysis, and timeframe. | |
| Please clarify how the 2020 Cost of Doing Nothing Analysis should be used as a baseline. Should the awarded contractor update or build upon the prior analysis, or use it only as a reference point for comparison? | The 2020 Cost of Doing Nothing should be used as a baseline and reference point for Task 1. The State anticipates that the awarded Bidder (s)will build upon and update the prior analysis as appropriate, while considering whether changes in available data, climate projections, economic conditions, identified hazards, sectors, and analytical methodologies warrant modifications or additions to the approach. The current study is not intended to simply replicate the 2020 analysis. The contractor should identify and recommend appropriate updates to the scope, methodology, scenarios, distributional analysis, and timeframe. | |
| Will the State provide budget, expenditure, funding, or project-level financial information for the resilience programs selected for analysis? If so, what level of detail will be available to support the economic impact modeling? | GOPIF will work closely with the selected Bidder(s) to identify and make available relevant program data, analyses, and datasets, as feasible. Bidders are encouraged to identify in their proposals any specific data or information they anticipate needing to support their work, and the State will make reasonable efforts to provide such information. |
The RFP appears inconsistent regarding eligibility documentation. Should eligibility documentation be included in File 1, File 2, or both? Please see Part III Key RFP Events, Section D. Proposal Submission. Eligibility documentation should be included in File 1 [Bidder’s Name] – Preliminary Information.
| The RFP references "Task 2A," but no Task 2A is defined. Is this reference intended to mean Task 2? | “Task 2A” is a typo and refers to Task 2. | |
| Part II p10: 2020 Cost of Doing Nothing addresses many of the items listed under Task 1. Are there specific pieces of the analysis (scope of impacts, scenarios, distributional analysis, timeframe) that GOPIF is looking for the update to emphasize? | The 2020 Cost of Doing Nothing should be used as a baseline and reference point for Task 1. The State anticipates that the awarded Bidder (s)will build upon and update the prior analysis as appropriate, while considering whether changes in available data, climate projections, economic conditions, identified hazards, sectors, and analytical methodologies warrant modifications or additions to the approach. The current study is not intended to simply replicate the 2020 analysis. Bidders should identify and recommend appropriate updates to the scope, methodology, scenarios, distributional analysis, and timeframe. | |
| Part II, p10: T2 & T3 reference investments tracked through the Maine Won't Wait reporting process, which includes GHG mitigation and climate adaptation projects. Will T2 and T3 analyze both types of projects, or only climate resilience projects? | This RFP focuses on resilience investments. | |
| Part II, p10-11: Has GOPIF previously performed analyses similar to Task 2 (economic impact analysis of resilience investments) or Task 3 (societal benefit valuation of resilience investments)? If so, were contractors used for these analyses? | Aside from the 2020 Cost of Doing Nothing, GOPIF has not undertaken economic impact analyses or societal valuation analysis. GOPIF will work closely with the selected Bidder(s) to identify and make available relevant program data, analyses, and datasets, as feasible. Bidders are encouraged to identify in their proposals any specific data or information they anticipate needing to support their work, and the State will make reasonable efforts to provide such information. | |
| Part II, p11: Has GOPIF performed any analysis on the potential effectiveness or risk reduction benefits of its investments during the design phase that could be used as input into this project? | GOPIF will work closely with the selected Bidder(s) to identify and make available relevant program data, analyses, and datasets, as feasible. Bidders are encouraged to identify in their proposals any specific data or information they anticipate needing to support their work, and the State will make reasonable efforts to provide such information. | |
| Part IV, p15: Do responses need to be provided within the Appendix Forms provided (i.e., within the form boxes) or are respondents allowed to use a different format, making sure to keep the order and labeling consistent with the provided forms? | Bidders’ proposals must follow the outline detailed in Part IV of the RFP, including the numbering, section, and sub-section headings. Failure to use the outline specified in PART IV, or failure to respond to all questions and instructions throughout the RFP, may result in the proposal being disqualified as non-responsive or receiving a reduced score. Bidders are not to provide additional attachments beyond those specified in the RFP for the purpose of extending their response. Additional materials not requested will not be considered part of the proposal and will not be evaluated. Bidders must include any forms provided in the submission package or reproduce those forms as closely as possible. All information must be presented in the same order and format as described in the RFP. | |
| Part IV, section IV, p17: Does GOPIF have a target budget or level of effort for this scope of services and/or by task? | The State has not established a not-to-exceed budget for this procurement or the three tasks. Bidders are encouraged to propose a cost that is reasonable, cost-effective, and appropriate to fully achieve the tasks outlined in the RFP. | |
| Part VII, Appendix C, p26: Can the respondent provide more than three project descriptions, particularly if the bid addresses multiple Tasks? | Bidders may provide up to three project descriptions per Task and no fewer than three project descriptions per proposal. | |
| Who will be responsible for ensuring methodological consistency if different contractors are awarded different Tasks? | GOPIF will work closely with any selected Bidders(s) to ensure methodological consistency. | |
| Is there an anticipated budget range or not-to-exceed amount for each Task? | The State has not established a not-to-exceed budget for this procurement or the three tasks. Bidders are encouraged to propose a cost that is reasonable, cost-effective, and appropriate to fully achieve the tasks outlined in the RFP. | |
| Are all tasks expected to be completed within the September 15, 2026–February 15, 2027 contract period? | Tasks 2 and 3 should be completed within the Initial Period of Performance. Task 1 may have more flexibility in timeline. | |
| What data and reports will you provide to the awarded contractors? Will you provide the datasets and assumptions used in the 2020 Cost of Doing Nothing analysis? Will previous consultant reports, technical appendices, and supporting analyses be made available to the awarded contractor(s)? | GOPIF will work closely with the selected Bidder(s) to identify and make available relevant program data, analyses, and datasets, as feasible. Bidders are encouraged to identify in their proposals any specific data or information they anticipate needing to support their work, and the State will make reasonable efforts to provide such information. | |
| Does the State have preferred climate scenarios, economic assumptions, or modeling frameworks that bidders should use? | The State is open to a range of methodological approaches. The State recognizes that not all economic and climate information needed for these assessments may be available from Maine-specific sources or may not be complete. Any modeled results are expected to be limited by data, assumptions, and structure. The awarded Bidder(s) should therefore provide information on the level of confidence and use an approach consistent with those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. | |
| How many stakeholder meetings or interviews should bidders assume beyond the required project meetings and presentations? | The State expects that the selected Bidder will work closely with GOPIF to identify and engage the appropriate stakeholders at key points throughout the project lifecycle. Bidders may propose the type, frequency, and format of engagement, as well as potential stakeholders, based on their proposed scope of work and methodology. Stakeholders may include: the Maine Climate Council, Community Resilience Working Group, state agencies, and others. | |
| Do you have a preferred economic impact modeling tool? Our firm typically uses IMPLAN. Is that sufficient? | The State is open to a range of methodological approaches and encourages bidders to propose the approach they believe best fits the objectives outlined in the RFP. | |
| Is the final report intended primarily as a technical document or will it be public-facing? | The final report is a public document. It should include a clear, standalone executive summary suitable for policymakers and state leadership, and shall fully document methods, assumptions, and limitations. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .