23MSC003_Addendum__1.pdf
PDF 148 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RFP No. 23MSC003 Grantee Program Review
- Solicitation number
- 0000030144
- Issued by
- Sacramento County, Sacramento City, California
About this file
This document is an Addendum to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 23MSC003 issued by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to review grantee policies, procedures, and practices for implementation of CARB-funded incentive programs. The review will cover program files, project inspections, and the development of findings, commendable efforts, and recommendations for program improvement for four grantees: the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Placer County Air Pollution Control District, Grid Alternatives, and Community Housing Development Corporation. The contract term is 22.5 months, with a maximum budget of $1.1 million, including a potential one-year option to renew.
The RFP clarifies that the contract term is 22.5 months, not 25.5 months as initially stated. It also provides details on the specific incentive programs and fiscal years to be reviewed for each grantee. The contractor is expected to complete the program reviews within the 22.5-month period, but CARB has the option to grant an additional 12 months if needed. Travel requirements will be determined by the contractor based on the needs to complete the program reviews.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 23MCS003_-_Addendum_No._2_Extend_Key_Action_Dates.pdf | ||
| RFP_23MSC003_Grantee_Program_Review.pdf |
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
arb.ca.gov 1001 I Street • P.O. Box 2815 • Sacramento, California 95812 (800) 242-4450
Notice to Prospective Proposers
Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 23MSC003
“Grantee Program Review”
ADDENDUM NO. 1
March 11, 2024
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is issuing this Addendum No. 1 to post Questions and Answers to the RFP.
All other information in the RFP shall remain the same.
This addendum, along with the RFP is published online in the California State Contracts Register at https://caleprocure.ca.gov/pages/index.aspx. To ensure receipt of any addenda that may be issued, interested parties are encouraged to register online at https://caleprocure.ca.gov Any questions are to be addressed to the contact listed below:
Contact: Jessie Foust Phone: (279) 216-0688 Email: Jessie.Foust@arb.ca.gov
Thank you.
https://caleprocure.ca.gov/pages/index.aspx https://caleprocure.ca.gov/ mailto:jessie.foust@arb.ca.gov
Questions and Answers
Question #1:
Can CARB elaborate on period of time (e.g., the number of years), and which specific incentive programs, will be within scope for each of the 4 grantees individually?
Answer: The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Fiscal Years reviewed will be from 2015-16 through 2021-2022 covering the Funding Agricultural Replacement Measures for Emission Reductions, Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program including State Reserve, Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program, Community Air Pollution Reduction Program, Low Carbon Transportation Program, the Air Quality Improvement Program, Air Quality and Lower Emission School Bus Program.
The Placer County Air Pollution Control District Fiscal Years reviewed will be from 2017-2018 through 2021-2022 covering the Funding Agricultural Replacement Measures for Emission Reductions, Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program including State Reserve, Community Air Pollution Reduction Program, Low Carbon Transportation Program, the Air Quality Improvement Program, and Lower Emission School Bus Program.
The Grid Alternatives Fiscal Years reviewed will be from 2017-2018 through 2021-2022 covering the Access Clean California Program which was previously called One-Stop-Shop Pilot Project.
The Community Housing Development Corporation Fiscal Years reviewed will be from 2018-2019 through 2021-2022 covering the Drive Clean Assistance Program.
Question #2:
Can CARB please clarify the 22.5-month contract schedule identified on pages 4, 17, 24, and 43 of the RFP. This schedule contrasts with Pages 19 and 83 of the RFP which identify a 25.5-month contract timeframe.
Answer: This was an oversight on the RFP. It should be 22.5-months for life of contract.
Question #3:
The RFP indicates a maximum budget of $1.1M over the 22.5 contract period. We are unclear how to use Exhibit B, Attachment 1, Part B of the Contractor Cost Sheet.
a. Should the Contractor assume a portion of the contract will be completed in Part A and a portion of the contract completed in Part B (as part of a one-year option to renew)?
b. Is the total budget of $1.1M for the entire contract period including the one-year option?
c. Is the Contractor required to complete Part B of the Contractor Cost Sheet (One-Year
Option to Renew) in the response?
d. If Part B is required, should it include Task 6?
Answer:
a. Yes, the contractor is expected to complete the program reviews in the 22.5-month period. If needed CARB has the option to grant an additional 12-months to the contract for the completion of work.
b. Yes, the total budget of $1.1M is for the entire contract period including the one-year option.
c. No, Part B is not required to be completed in this response. Part B would be utilized if an additional 12-months is granted for the contract work to be completed.
d. For Part B, one-year option to renew, item 6 in Part A would still be required to be submitted.
Question #4:
Should the example table on page 18 include Task 6?
Answer: Yes, the work plan and work schedule table should include task 6.
Question #5:
Should Attachment 11, Contractor Cost Sheet include Task 6 for both Part A and B?
Answer: Yes, Attachment 11, Contractor Cost Sheet should include Task 6 for both Part A and B.
Question #6:
Should Section D on page 40 indicated 6 tasks rather than 5?
Answer: A typo occurred in the description portion of the RFP. Refer to page 40 of 88, section D task and deliverables, contractors shall complete six (6) specific tasks instead of five (5) specific tasks.
Question #7:
Can CARB elaborate on the extent of travel requirements for the project?
Answer: The extent of travel would be determined by the contractor and what would be necessary to complete the Program Reviews.
Question #8:
Does CARB envision that Contractor staff will need to be on-site at each of the four (4) grantee sites? If so, how much on-site attendance versus remote work would be required over the 22.5-month period?
Answer: The extent of travel would be determined by the contractor and what would be necessary to complete the Program Reviews.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .