25-M-0043 Request for Proposals.pdf

Request for Proposals

To Perform a Focused Operations Audit to Examine Management Incentive Compensation Programs at Electric, Gas, and Water Utilities Case 25-M-0043

February 13, Case 25-M-0043 Request for Proposals

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

1.2 Roles and Responsibilities of the Parties

1.3 Contact Information

1.4 Key Events

1.5 Minimum Qualifications

1.6 Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Conduct

1.7 Management Incentive Compensation Rate Treatment in New York

2. Consulting Firm Selection Process

2.1 Bidders Conference

2.2 Proposal Evaluation

2.3 Finalist Interviews

2.4 Notification

2.5 Contracting Procedures

2.6 Reserved Rights

3. Performing the Audit

3.1 Audit Scope

3.2 Developing and Supporting Recommendations

3.3 Benefit/Cost Analyses

3.4 Managing Audit Documents

3.5 Anticipated On-Site Work and Travel

3.6 Deliverables

3.7 Payment

3.8 Post-Audit Activities

4. Writing and Submitting a Proposal

4.1 Content

4.2 Confidentiality of Proposals

4.3 Proposal Submission Procedures

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) seeks an independent consulting firm to perform a focused operations audit to examine and compare management variable pay programs of New York electric, gas, and water utilities. The subject utilities will include Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison); Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R); Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a National Grid (Niagara Mohawk); The Brooklyn Union Gas d/b/a National Grid NY (KEDNY); Key Span Gas East Corporation d/b/a National Grid (KEDLI); Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation (Central Hudson); National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation (NFG); Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E); New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG); Liberty Utilities (New York Water) Corp. (Liberty Water); Liberty Utilities (St. Lawrence Gas) Corp. (St. Lawrence); Corning Natural Gas Corporation (Corning); and Veolia Water New York, Inc. (Veolia) (collectively, the Utilities).

The audit will be performed in accordance with Public Service Laws §66(19) and §89-c(15).1

The Commission expects the selected consulting firm to analyze current and historical information for the purpose of gaining an understanding of the Utilities’ non-executive management variable compensation programs, compare and contrast these programs across the Utilities, and identify best practices. The Commission seeks proposals that set forth a framework within which the Department of Public Service (Department) can develop a more comprehensive understanding of the Utilities’ respective variable compensation programs and explore improvement opportunities with the Utilities.

After completing its review, the consulting firm will document its findings and conclusions in a report.

The report will identify improvement opportunities and include recommendations to improve each utility’s performance going forward or better utilize variable pay programs to benefit ratepayers.

Potential bidders are encouraged to visit the Commission's website and/or view Commission sessions to stay informed of recent Commission actions and related developments.

1.2 Roles and Responsibilities of the Parties

Public Service Commission The Commission is the client. The Commission will select the consulting firm to perform the audit and, through the Department, will monitor the audit for adherence to the Request for Proposals (RFP), the proposal, the contract, and the approved work plan.

Department of Public Service The Department advises the Commission. The Department’s responsibilities encompass all aspects of the audit. The Department will evaluate proposals and recommend a consulting firm to the Commission for selection. The Department is responsible for day-to-day oversight and will work closely with the consulting firm and the Utilities to facilitate coordination among all parties. The Department will review

1 At this link, select “PBS” to view the Public Service Law sections, then select “Article 4” to view the Provisions Relating to Gas and Electric Corporations. Select “Article 4-B“ to view the Provisions Relating to Water.

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO:

http://www.dps.ny.gov/ http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/SN/Webcasts the consulting firm’s work and assume an active role in the audit. This will include accompanying consultants on site visits, attending interviews, reviewing analytical procedures, and monitoring the progress of the audit in terms of scope, budget, work plan, and schedule. The Department is responsible for reviewing and approving consulting firm invoices.

Consulting Firm The consulting firm is responsible for performing the audit in adherence to the RFP, the proposal, the contract, and the approved work plan. The consulting firm will develop the findings, conclusions, and recommendations and is responsible for producing the audit’s deliverables. The consulting firm will designate a representative who will sign the multi-party contract and a project manager to work with the Department and the Utilities on day-to-day activities for this audit.

Utilities Each utility will designate a senior officer with the authority to make decisions and sign the multi-party contract. Each utility will also designate a project manager to work with the Department and consulting firm counterparts. In coordination with those counterparts, the utility project managers will facilitate the scheduling of interviews, arrange site visits, and manage the flow of data requests and responses.

The Utilities will provide the consulting firm with suitable on-site office space and equipment as needed.

Following approval by the Department, the Utilities will pay consulting firm invoices.

1.3 Contact Information

Peter Lavery (518-486-2647) is the Project Manager and primary contact for this audit. Jeremy Routhier (518-473-8149) is the Engagement Director.

Consulting firms interested in bidding on this project should e-mail MOA@dps.ny.gov to indicate their interest and reference Case 25-M-0043 in the subject line. Consulting firms should submit any questions to the Department via e-mail. All questions and responses will be shared with all interested consulting firms, though the source of the question will be anonymous.

1.4 Key Events

The anticipated schedule for this project is set forth below. The schedule may be altered at the discretion of the Department or the Commission. Consulting firms should indicate in their proposals the expected dates for the Draft and Final Reports. If the consulting firm’s proposed schedule differs substantially from the schedule below, a rationale for the difference should be provided.

Target Date Task March 6, 2025 Bidders Conference April 3, 2025 Consultants’ Proposals Due April 17-22, 2025 Finalist Interviews May 14, 2025 Consultant Selected July 2025 Orientation Meetings August 2025 Initial Work Plan Due TBD Draft and Final Reports Due mailto:MOA@dps.ny.gov

1.5 Minimum Qualifications

The consulting firm selected for this audit must demonstrate that its proposed team has a thorough knowledge of management compensation methods and best practices, incentive compensation programs, strategies for motivating management employees’ short- and long-term performance, and analytical methods for establishing compensation levels, gained from either direct employment in the field or by professional reviews of such entities.

1.6 Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Conduct

The Commission and/or the Department will not engage any firm with a conflict of interest and may not engage any firm with the appearance of a conflict of interest. Each consulting firm, and any of its principals, affiliates, or subcontractors must disclose:

• All previous work performed for any utility involved in this project, its affiliates, or for other organizations associated with the utility industry in New York State during the five-year period preceding the date of the proposal,

• All existing contracts or agreements with such entities, and

• Any direct financial interest in such entities.

The proposal must identify any such relationships. This disclosure will not necessarily disqualify an individual or firm. Failure to disclose such relationship or financial interest, however, will be considered grounds for disqualification. If the Department determines that a conflict or apparent conflict exists, it will advise the consulting firm of such and, if possible, identify remedies.

Additionally, former employees of the Department of Public Service are prohibited from appearing or practicing before, assisting with the preparation of any documents for submission to, or receiving compensation related to any matter before the Department or Commission for a period of two years following the individual’s employment with the Department. Including such a former employee in a consulting firm’s proposal or other communications with the Department could be construed to be an appearance by that former employee before the Department in violation of Public Officers Law and may be grounds for disqualification of the consulting firm’s bid.

1.7 Management Incentive Compensation Rate Treatment in New York In the 2011 Rate Order,2 the Commission set forth requirements that utilities must meet to recover from ratepayers the cost of incentive compensation for utility management employees. The Commission explained that a utility could demonstrate that its incentive compensation program is designed to return quantifiable or demonstrable benefits to ratepayers in a financial sense or in terms of reliability, environmental impact, or customer service. Alternatively, a utility could demonstrate, by providing a compensation study and a full presentation of the incentive compensation program, that its total

2 Case 10-E-0362, Proceeding on Motion of the Commission as to the Rates, Charges, Rules and Regulations of Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. for Electric Service, Order Establishing Rates for Electric Service (issued June 17, 2011) (2011 Rate Order).

employee compensation level, including incentive pay and benefits, is reasonable relative to peer companies and includes performance targets that support the provision of safe and adequate service, have no potential to adversely affect ratepayers, and are consistent with Commission policies.

Since that 2011 Rate Order, many electric, gas, and water utilities have sought cost recovery for management incentive compensation programs under the second set of those requirements – asserting that overall compensation is reasonable and that the incentive compensation program benefits ratepayers. However, some rate cases have raised issues not explicitly addressed by the Commission’s 2011 Rate Order. Typically, if the Commission authorizes rate recovery, an estimated cost for the program is recovered from ratepayers over the course of the rate plan.

Generally, the utilities that have satisfied the Commission’s requirements have hired consultants to conduct compensation studies to demonstrate the reasonableness of their management compensation.

Some utilities have performed comprehensive studies, and others have presented multiple studies for individual compensation components. Compensation studies can employ differing methodologies, some relying on proprietary data and others using more readily available survey data. Those compensation studies can be expensive, and their cost is usually included in a utility’s rate request.

The Commission’s management and operations audits regularly review the performance management activities of large, investor-owned electric and gas utilities. Typically, these audits review how a utility’s performance management processes promote Commission objectives vis-à-vis goals related to safety, reliability, customer service, and the environment. Some recent audit reports have highlighted meaningful concerns with how some utilities administer their programs.

The Utilities’ most recent rate proceedings and management and operations audits (where applicable) are linked in the following table.

Utility Recent Rate Proceeding(s) Recent Audit Con Edison 22-E-0064 et al. / 22-S-0659

21-M-0193 O&R 24-E-0060 et al.

Niagara Mohawk 20-E-0380 et al.

18-M-0195 KEDLI 23-G-0226

KEDNY 23-G-0225

NYSEG 22-E-0317 et al.

23-M-0103 RG&E 22-E-0319 et al.

Central Hudson 23-E-0418 et al. 21-M-0541

NFG 23-G-0627 18-G-0394

Liberty Water 23-W-0235 N/A St. Lawrence 21-G-0577 N/A

Corning 21-G-0394 N/A Veolia 23-W-0111 N/A https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=67366&MNO=22-E-0064 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=69448&MNO=22-S-0659 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=65146&MNO=21-M-0193 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=72653&MNO=24-E-0060 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=63186&MNO=20-E-0380 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=56217&MNO=18-M-0195 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=70619&MNO=23-G-0226 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=70618&MNO=23-G-0225 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=68264&MNO=22-E-0317 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=70136&MNO=23-M-0103 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=68266&MNO=22-E-0319 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=71378&MNO=23-E-0418 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=66705&MNO=21-M-0541 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=72043&MNO=23-G-0627 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=57017&MNO=18-G-0394 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=70695&MNO=23-W-0235 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=66879&MNO=21-G-0577 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=65902&MNO=21-G-0394 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=70189&MNO=23-W-0111

2. Consulting Firm Selection Process

2.1 Bidders Conference

A bidders teleconference will be held at 1:00 PM on March 6, 2025. All potential bidders are invited to contact the Department at MOA@dps.ny.gov by 12:00 PM on March 6, 2025, referencing Case 25-M- 0043 in the subject line, to receive the login information for the conference call. This call will go over the logistics of the proposal review process and allow potential bidders to ask the Department questions.

2.2 Proposal Evaluation

All proposals first undergo a technical evaluation and a cost evaluation by the Department. The results of this evaluation will determine which consulting firms proceed to the finalist interviews.

Written Technical Evaluation All proposals will be evaluated based on their written content. The Department will consider the responsiveness of the proposal to this RFP, the proposed approach for and demonstrated understanding of each audit element, and the qualifications of the consulting firm and the individual consulting team members assigned to each element of the audit. The consulting firm’s project management approach, proposed schedule, and approach to Benefit/Cost Analyses will also be considered. The technical evaluation portion is worth 42.5% of the total score.

Cost Evaluation All proposals deemed responsive by the Department will undergo a cost evaluation. The cost evaluation portion is worth 15% of the proposal score.

2.3 Finalist Interviews

The Department will notify consulting firms selected for finalist interviews. Finalist interviews will be conducted by tele- or videoconference. Finalist interviews last approximately two hours and include a presentation by the consulting firm and questions from the Department. The entire consulting team is generally expected to participate. The finalist interview is worth 42.5% of the total score.

2.4 Notification

Following the Commission’s selection of a consulting firm, the Department will notify the selected consulting firm and other bidders. All bidders not selected will be allowed to receive feedback after the Commission’s selection. No information regarding the Department’s review of proposals will be shared with any consulting firm or any other party until the Commission makes a selection.

2.5 Contracting Procedures

The consulting firm selected by the Commission will sign a multi-party contract that will govern the conduct of the audit. The Utilities and the Department will also sign this contract.

2.6 Reserved Rights

The Commission and/or the Department reserves the right to:

• Reject any or all proposals received in response to this RFP.

• Withdraw this RFP at any time, at the Department’s sole discretion.

• Recommend the Commission make an award under this RFP in whole or in part.

• Amend the RFP specifications at any time to correct errors or oversights or to supply additional information as it becomes available.

• Prior to the due date for proposal submission, direct bidders to submit proposal modifications addressing subsequent RFP amendments.

• Disqualify any bidder whose conduct and/or proposal fails to conform to the requirements of the RFP or any subsequent amendments to the RFP.

• Seek clarifications and revisions of proposals, including revisions addressing subsequent RFP amendments.

• Change any of the scheduled dates.

• Waive any requirements that are not material.

• Negotiate with the successful bidder within the scope of this RFP or any subsequent amendments hereto in the best interests of New York State or its ratepayers.

• Conduct contract negotiations with the next responsible bidder should the Department be unsuccessful in negotiating with the selected bidder.

• Utilize any and all ideas submitted in the proposals received.

• Require clarification at any time during the consulting firm selection process and/or require correction of arithmetic or other apparent errors for the purpose of assuring a full and complete understanding of a bidder’s proposal and/or to determine a bidder’s compliance with the requirements of this RFP or any subsequent amendments hereto.

3. Performing the Audit

3.1 Audit Scope

1 – Management Compensation 1 Determine whether each utility’s approach to setting management compensation levels is consistent with industry standards and best practices. Consider the following:

• The tools and studies used to set compensation levels.

• How each utility determines what constitutes a reasonable peer group.

• The use of modifiers such as geographic adjustments.

• Measurement of cash and non-cash compensation, inclusive of all benefits.

• The process for matching management labor positions in the benchmarking analysis.

2 Determine whether each utility’s approach to setting management compensation levels produces reasonable compensation levels that are aligned with peers.

3 Review the effect of management compensation programs and promotional opportunities on employee retention and attraction outcomes.

4 Assess the adequacy, transparency, necessity, and frequency of compensation studies.

5 Determine whether any additional or alternative information should be provided during rate proceedings to ensure that there can be an adequate review of compensation levels.

2 – Incentive Program Targets 1 Determine if each utility’s incentive pay program is designed to drive performance that benefits ratepayers in New York. Consider the following:

• Positions that are eligible for variable pay programs.

• The promotion of safety, reliability, customer service, infrastructure modernization, and

Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act goals.

• Whether targets are focused on the New York operating company’s performance.

2 Assess whether each utility’s incentive pay program sets goals and associated payouts in a manner to encourage continuous improvement and behavioral change.

3 Determine the extent to which each utility’s incentive pay program rewards financial performance relative to ratepayer-focused performance.

3.2 Developing and Supporting Recommendations

The audit program is guided by the principle that improvements to management practices and processes will lead to improved performance over time. Consulting firms are expected to identify such improvement opportunities based on the consulting firm’s independent analysis of information provided by the Utilities and each utility’s performance results. The Commission and Department expect recommendations to be meaningful, actionable, and well-supported. In the report, recommendations must be clearly tied to underlying findings and conclusions, which are based on the consulting firm’s independent assessment of information provided by the Utilities.

3.3 Benefit/Cost Analyses

Each recommendation developed by the consulting firm that would require the subject utility to incur incremental costs must be accompanied by a Benefit/Cost Analysis (BCA) that considers potential benefits, potential risks, one-time and ongoing costs, and potential savings or efficiencies. Consulting team members must work with the subject utility to quantify savings and cost components.

Proposals shall indicate the consulting firm’s experience with and intended approach to BCAs, including any templates the consulting firm intends to use. Proposed schedules shall include adequate time for the development of robust and well-documented BCAs that are informed by each utility. Final BCAs will be included in the Final Report or as an appendix to the Final Report.

3.4 Managing Audit Documents

All work papers, interview notes, statistical analyses, and other supporting documents developed or obtained by the consulting firm during the audit are to be made available to the Department in a sequentially organized electronic format. The exact processes to be used for this type of reporting will be developed following the selection of a consulting firm. If a consulting firm has a preferred process or proprietary system for such, it shall identify that process or system in its proposal. Draft and final written deliverables will be submitted to the Department via e-mail.

3.5 Anticipated On-Site Work and Travel

The audit work begins with Department Staff briefing the consulting firm on the scope of the audit, followed by the consulting firm’s submission of its initial data requests to the Utilities, an orientation meeting, audit interviews, additional data requests, and potential site visits. The orientation and audit interviews may be conducted in person, remotely by videoconference, or through a hybrid approach.

The timing of the orientations and any in-person requirements will be determined in consultation with the Department and the Utilities. A tentative timeframe for the orientation is indicated in Section 1.4 of this RFP. The purpose of the orientation is to gain sufficient background and perspective to prepare the audit work plan. Further data requests and interviews will follow as determined by the consulting firm.

Please note that interviews and site visits may not be scheduled when the Department is not open for business. Additionally, key members of the consulting team are expected to provide briefings on the Final Report to the Department, the Commissioners, and the Utilities.

3.6 Deliverables

The consulting firm will provide the following during the engagement:

• Work Plan – Following orientation, the consulting firm will develop and submit a work plan to the Department. The work plan is a further refinement of the proposal. The work plan scope will be derived from the scope in this RFP and will be informed by information learned from orientation and initial data requests.

• Status Updates – The consulting firm will meet with the Department regularly during the audit to report on the progress of the audit.

• Status Reporting – The consulting firm must provide a written status report with each monthly invoice indicating the audit’s overall progress from the preceding month, as well as reporting against the schedule and budget and anticipated activities for the following month.

• Briefings – The consulting firm will brief the Department approximately halfway through the audit to discuss tentative findings, preliminary assessments, and potential conclusions. The consulting firm may be required to brief the Department or Commission at other times as well.

The consulting firm may also be required to meet with the Utilities’ senior management or Boards of Directors.

• Draft and Final Reports – The consulting firm will submit a Draft Report to the Department per the schedule in the approved work plan. Following the incorporation of feedback and approval from the Department, the consulting firm will present a revised Draft Report to the Utilities to review confidentiality and factual accuracy. The consulting firm will submit a Final Report to the Department following the Utilities’ review of the Draft Report.

• Benefit/Cost Analyses – The consulting firm will submit draft BCAs along with the Draft Report and Final BCAs along with the Final Report

3.7 Payment

The consulting firm will submit a detailed invoice via e-mail monthly to the Department for approval.

Following the Department’s approval, the Utilities will pay the consulting firm.

Payments are subject to certain retentions tied to deliverables and milestones, which are detailed in the multi-party contract. Once the associated milestone has been met, a consulting firm must submit an invoice to the Department to approve the retention payment.

3.8 Post-Audit Activities

The multi-party contract will provide for additional work after the audit. If the Commission or the Department requires other work by the consulting firm after the audit, the consulting firm must agree to provide the needed support at its standard rates for consulting services as outlined in the proposal. The consulting firm will be reimbursed for actual, reasonable travel expenses for post-audit work.

4. Writing and Submitting a Proposal

4.1 Content

The proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the objectives and deliverables outlined in this RFP. It should also illustrate the consulting firm’s approach to meeting the objectives in a timely and comprehensive manner. Proposals demonstrate the consulting firm’s ability to follow the instructions in this RFP and to communicate relevant information in a clear and professional manner. In this way, proposals are indicative of the quality of the Final Report. The Department expects proposals to be well-written, free of typographical errors, succinct, complete, and well-organized.

The proposal must include the following components:

• Introduction and Firm Experience – In a concise narrative, describe the consulting firm’s understanding of the scope and objectives of the project. The narrative should demonstrate the consulting firm’s recent and relevant history, as well as its expertise relevant to the scope of work, New York’s regulatory environment, and issues specific to the Utilities. Generic “boilerplate” material and restatements of this RFP must be kept to a minimum.

• Scope and Objectives – Describe in detail the consulting firm’s understanding of each audit element in this RFP. Identify any additional evaluative criteria, specific tasks, and activities for each audit element. Organize and number these in the same manner as Section 3.1 – Audit Scope, so it is clear which criteria, tasks, and activities are related to which scope component.

• Approach, Methods, and Project Management – Describe how the audit will be planned, conducted, and managed by the proposed team, as well as the methods and procedures the consulting firm proposes to use for the audit.

• Benefit/Cost Analyses – Include a description of the consulting firm’s approach to developing Benefit/Cost Analyses. See Section 3.3 of this RFP for further guidance.

• Project Team and Responsibilities – The proposal must identify the consulting firm’s Project Manager. The proposal should include team member assignments for each audit element, including the designation of lead and support team members as applicable. The proposal must include a breakdown of the allocation of hours (not person-days) committed to each audit element, both in total and per individual assigned. All consulting team member assignments must identify actual individuals; placeholders for unidentified staff are unacceptable. No personnel other than those identified in the proposal can be assigned to the audit without prior written approval from the Department.

• Work Timeline – Include a timeline reflecting the duration of each audit phase. Include anticipated delivery dates for the Draft and Final Reports.

• Individual Experience and Qualifications – Include a brief resume for each team member detailing the individual’s recent and relevant experience and credentials applicable to this audit.

Include descriptions of previous assignments relevant to this audit and indicate if those assignments were performed on behalf of a utility, a regulatory agency, or another party.

Identify all subcontractors.

• Writing Samples – Include links to relevant professional writing samples. Do not include the documents themselves, only links.

• Conflicts of Interest – The proposal must identify any potential conflicts of interest. For more information about conflicts of interest, see Section 1.6 of this RFP. If no potential conflicts of interest exist, the proposal should state this.

• References – The proposal must include at least two and no more than five references for recent and relevant work. Do not list any projects with the Department or include any names of Department personnel. References will be contacted.

• Insurance Attestation – New York State Workers' Compensation Law requires that any business applying for permits, licenses, or contracts with New York State provide evidence of appropriate workers’ compensation and disability benefits insurance coverage. More information can be found at the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board’s website. The consulting firm must attest that it understands the mandatory insurance requirements and will provide documentation of such to the Department upon selection. The consulting firm does not need to provide proof of coverage with the proposal but will be required to provide such proof if the firm is selected to perform the audit.

• Cost – The proposal must indicate the standard hourly rate for each team member, as well as the total cost for the project. The total cost includes the standard hourly rate for each consulting team member multiplied by the number of hours each team member is expected to work on the project, plus potential travel expenses. Do not include any post-project activities in the proposed total cost.

4.2 Confidentiality of Proposals

After the Commission makes its selection, the Department will post all submitted proposals and associated cost information to its website under Case 25-M-0043.

4.3 Proposal Submission Procedures

The proposal package must be e-mailed to MOA@dps.ny.gov by 4:00PM Eastern Time on Thursday, April 3, 2025.

http://www.wcb.ny.gov/ https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=75354&MNO=25-M-0043