25ISD008_-_Addendum_No._1_FINAL.pdf

Notice to Prospective Bidders

Request For Proposal (RFP) No. 25ISD008

“Evaluation of Fuel Specification Changes”

ADDENDUM NO. 1

March 17, 2026

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is issuing this Addendum No. 1 to provide the ‘Question and Answers’ addendum as stated in the RFP, answering any questions received from vendors between the time period of February 27, 2026, to March 13, 2026 at 12:00pm.

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: Brian Fong Email: brian.fong@arb.ca.gov CC: vikki.dyachuk@arb.ca.gov

Thank you.

RFP 25ISD008

Addendum No. 1

Question #1:

“In Subtask 1b, when CARB references ‘fuel flow dynamics,’ is the focus on the behavior of fuels in an engine or is the focus on supply chains through the region? The context suggests the focus is on supply chains, but the term can also be applied to how internal combustion engines function.

Answer to Question #1:

The “fuel flow dynamics” in subtask 1b of section I.C. (page 9) of the Request for Proposal (RFP) does not require a focus on the behavior of fuels in an engine.

Question #2:

Does Task 2 include evaluating the impact of total emissions from each gasoline specification?

Answer to Question #2:

Task 2 does not require an assessment of the emissions impact from the gasoline specifications. Per the list of subtasks listed under Task 1 of section I.C. (page 9) of the RFP, the Proposer shall at minimum analyze fuel flow dynamics, impacts on refiners, and price.

Question #3:

Task 2 includes the statement “This analysis should include impacts on cost of production by each refinery identified in Task 1, as well as impacts on volumes able to be produced by each.” However, Task 1 does not include an identification of specific refineries or their cost of production. The production cost analysis in Task 1 appears to refer to each gasoline specification in scope. Can CARB confirm if Task 1 should also include an analysis of each refinery’s production cost for gasoline?

Answer to Question #3:

The statement referenced is sufficiently clear. Proposals should provide a methodology to address all tasks and subtasks identified in the RFP.

Question #4:

Under Section III Technical Requirements A.1.d and A.1.f ask for examples of previous client work. Does CARB expect to see complete reports or an edited segment to demonstrate this experience. Also, given that many of our reports are confidential, will CARB allow us to redact client names, identifying characteristics, and commercially sensitive information in these submittals?

Answer to Question #4:

An edited segment of the report to demonstrate the relevant experience is acceptable.

Client names, identifying characteristics, and commercially sensitive information can be redacted.

Question #5:

Can CARB please identify the specific States that you wish included in the specification modifications?

Answer to Question #5:

Per section I.C. (page 8) of the RFP, the specific states to be included in the specification modification “potentially includes the states of California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona.” Proposals should provide the Proposer’s methodology to address all tasks and subtasks identified in the RFP.

Question #6:

Does CARB intend to require bidders to hold to a firm fixed price for each task or for the overall project?

Response to Question #6:

Yes, each task should have a firm fixed cost. Please refer to page 26, 1. Cost Detail a.

“Itemized Tasks – Using Attachment 11, Contractor Cost Sheet, provide firm-fixed costs for specific tasks listed in Attachment 2, Draft Standard Agreement (STD 213).”

Question #7:

Project duration and task completion timeline Page 3 states the work of this contract is expected to take twenty-one (21) months, while the “DATE OF COMPLETION” for Task 5 (Final Report) on Page 25 is “no later than 14 months after contract approval.” Please clarify the overall project duration, including expected completion dates for all tasks and any activities extending beyond Final Report delivery.

Answer to Question #7:

Per section III.A.11.c. (page 24) of the RFP,” [t]he Work Plan and Work Schedule must reflect the total project timeline of twenty-one (21) months.” The dates of completion provided on Page 25 should be considered in the Proposal submitted.

Question #8:

Placement and format of the Cost Proposal Page 12 (Section II.D.2.a) states that one (1) copy containing the Technical Proposal and all other required elements along with the Cost Proposal should be submitted. Page 25 (Section III.B) states, “The cost breakdown (Cost Proposal) shall be included in the Technical Proposal.” Please clarify whether the Cost Proposal should be (a) a separate document submitted concurrently with the Technical Proposal, or (b) integrated as a section within the Technical Proposal.

Answer to Question #8:

Per section III.B. (page 25) of the RFP, “[t]he cost breakdown (Cost Proposal) shall be included in the Technical Proposal.” Section II.D.2.a (page 12) states that “[o]ne (1) copy containing the Technical Proposal and all other required elements along with the Cost Proposal.” All costs must be provided for each task and deliverable. The proposed costs should be broken down into the outline in the Work Plan and Work Schedule for the purpose of this cost proposal submittal.

The contractor must also separately fill out Attachment 11, Contractor Cost Sheet, providing firm-fixed costs for specific tasks listed in Attachment 2, Draft Standard Agreement (STD 213). This is part of the Required Attachment Checklist on page 35.

Question #9:

Application of the 70-point minimum score Page 27 (Section IV.B.1) states, “Proposer must score a minimum of 70 points (combined score of technical evaluation and cost points) to be eligible for award.” The “Final Scoring Methodology Example” on Page 28 shows Bidder A with 107 points (81 technical + 26 cost), Bidder B with 114 points, and Bidder C with 122 points, and Page 19 references a total of 1,200 points. Please clarify how the 70-point minimum threshold is applied in relation to the total possible points (e.g., 100 technical + 30 cost = 130 points at the evaluator level and/or 1,200 points in aggregate).

Answer to Question #9:

Section IV.B.3. (page 27) of the RFP contains the scoring rubric that will be used. In accordance with section IV.B.3., all proposals will be scored out of 100 points. Any numbers presented in other sections are for example purposes and are intended to provide a better understanding of how the scoring methodology is conducted. The 70-point minimum must be achieved through a combination of 70 technical + 30 cost points.

Question #10:

Primary contractual and administrative points of contact Page 44 (Section E) lists “Agency: California Air Resources Board, Section/Unit: Emerging Fuels Section” as the Contract Manager, while Page 45 lists “Agency: California Air Resources Board, Division: Industrial Strategies Division” as the Administrative Contact.

Please clarify the primary point(s) of contact for (a) contractual/administrative inquiries and

(b) technical/project-related inquiries during the proposal phase and after award.

Answer to Question #10:

The points of contact will be completed with specific individuals to contact when the final contract is created. The points of contact are not needed for a potential Contractor to submit a proposal.

Question #11:

During the term of the contract - (1) what is the expectation for frequency, duration, and participants in update meetings; and (2) how are comments on the draft report to be managed

Answer to Question #11:

(1) Per Task 3 of section I.C (page 10) of the RFP, “the Contractor and CARB Contract

Manager shall communicate at least biweekly on the progress of the project.” Proposals can further address proposed communications.

(2) The question is unclear. However, as described in the workplan schedule format in the RFP, Page 24, draft versions are anticipated for technical deliverables followed by final versions.

Question #12:

Role of the California Energy Commission and other agencies The RFP references use of data and analyses that are traditionally maintained by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and federal agencies such as the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Please clarify CEC’s role in this project (e.g., data provision, technical review, co-management) and any expectations regarding coordination with CEC, EIA, or other state agencies.

Answer to Question #12:

This RFP intends to provide services to CARB. As noted in the question, the RFP references data and analysis that may be available from other primary sources but does not speak to any involvement of other agencies.

Question #13:

Refinery modeling expectations Several tasks reference analysis of refinery production costs, volumes, and configuration changes under alternative fuel-specification scenarios. Please clarify whether CARB expects the contractor to use any specific refinery modeling tools or frameworks (e.g., a particular linear programming model), and whether CARB has preferences or requirements regarding third-party refinery modeling subcontractors.

Answer to Question #13:

Specific refinery modeling tools or frameworks are not required. Section III.A.1.c. (page 20) of the RFP outlines the minimal qualifications required in the proposal. Section III.A.10 (page 22) outlines information regarding the use of subcontractors.

Question #14:

Emission and Air Quality Impacts Assessments The RFP requests that the contractor “Identify and provide a range of potential harmonized specification scenarios for both all West Coast states and California-only (minimum of three different specifications for each scenario, totaling six, compliant with minimum Federal regulations). Other than being compliant with minimum federal regulations, please clarify any requirements or expectations for emission or air quality impacts for acceptable specification scenarios. Is an assessment of the emission and/or air quality impacts of the various scenarios – both within California and in the other states – expected as part of this scope of work? Is any of this a part of the award criteria?

Answers to Question #14:

Regarding emission or air quality impacts requirements and assessments, please refer to the answer in question 2 for information regarding emissions or air quality impacts analyses. Regarding award criteria, section III.A.1. (page 20) contains the scoring criterion used in evaluation of the proposal.

Question #15:

Use of metric and “British” units The RFP states that metric units should be used, while also allowing “British” units in parentheses. For clarity and consistency across tasks, please confirm the preferred units for key fuel and refinery metrics (e.g., barrels per day vs metric tons per year, gallons vs liters) and whether both sets of units are required in all tabular and graphical outputs.

Stillwater recommends using the U.S. standard petroleum units of barrels and gallons for volumes. Units measuring temperature should be in Fahrenheit, rather than Celsius.

Answer to Question #15:

Per Exhibit G – Final Report Format (page 61) of the RFP states that the “[m]easurements in the Reports should be expressed in metric units…[and] values may be given in British units as well in parentheses after the value in metric units.” This is a requirement for the final report format.

Question #16:

Printed and electronic deliverable requirements The RFP requires printed spiral-bound and unbound copies of the final report in addition to electronic Word/PDF submissions. Please confirm:

• The exact number of spiral-bound and unbound hard copies required; and

• Whether CARB will accept fewer (or no) printed copies if identical, fully accessible electronic versions are provided.

Answer to Question #16:

Per the RFP on page 61, “Note: In partial fulfillment of the Final Report requirements, the Contractor shall submit a copy of the Report in PDF format and in a word-processing format, preferably in Word - Version 6.0 or later. This is in addition to the submission of any paper copies required.”. It will not require a paper copy(ies).

Question #17:

Payment schedule and invoicing expectations The RFP specifies a not-to-exceed contract amount and standard state withholding but does not appear to describe the anticipated payment schedule in detail. Please clarify expected invoicing frequency (e.g., monthly or by task/milestone), the typical timing for payment following invoice approval, and whether any interim deliverables are tied to specific progress payments.

Answer to Question #17:

Per Exhibit B (page 47) of the RFP, “Invoices must include the Agreement Number and must be submitted not more frequently than quarterly in arrears…”

Section III.B.1 (page 25) states that “[a]ll costs must be provided for each task and deliverable. The proposed costs should be broken down into the outline in the Work Plan and Work Schedule for the purpose of this cost proposal submittal.”

Per Exhibit B (page 47) of the RFP, “[f]or services satisfactorily rendered, upon receipt and approval of an invoice(s) for each completed task and deliverable, the State agrees to compensate the Contractor for costs specified in accordance with Exhibit B, Attachment 1, Contractor Cost Sheet [...] Payment will be made in accordance with, and within the time specified in, Government Code Chapter 4.5, commencing with Section 927.”

For typical time frame for payments please refer to Exhibit B, page 47, C. Prompt Payment Clause.

Question #18:

Vehicle Scrappage Program The RFP requests at total of six (6) different fuel specification scenarios. Please confirm whether evaluation of a scenario involving a vehicle scrappage program funded by fees from non-compliant gasoline – as proposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists – is expected in the scope of this effort.

Answer to Question #18:

The RFP does not require a scenario involving a vehicle scrappage program funded by fees from non-compliant gasoline.

Question #19:

Access to data Several aspects of the analysis would be aided and improved by access to data from CARB and/or CEC. Will CARB and/or CEC grant the contractor access to any of the following data either in detail or in an aggregated form that would mask CBI?

• Historical and current facility-specific production and import data by fuel specification

• Historical and current California gasoline exports by product specification

• Refinery and import fuel quality batch data

• Refinery capacity

• Refinery unit capacities (e.g., alkylate)

• Historical and current retail fuel quality data by season

Answer to Question #19:

The Proposer will be given access to CARB data necessary to carry out the tasks outlined in the RFP. Proposals should reflect the proposer’s methodology to complete all work and may identify data needs.