Addendum 2~2.pdf

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs

100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

Maura T. Healey

GOVERNOR

Kimberley Driscoll

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Rebecca L. Tepper

SECRETARY

Tel: (617) 626-1000 Fax: (617) 626-1081 http://www.mass.gov/eea

Second Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Coordinating Council

(EVICC) Assessment Section 103 Charging Hub Analysis

BD-26-1042-ENV-ENV01-120905

Addendum # 2 October 1, 2025

RE: Addendum No. 2 – RFQ Solicitation Document Update

To: All Proposers/Bidders of Record:

Please be advised that the RFQ Solicitation Documents for the above-referenced project have been modified, corrected, and/or supplemented as follows. Addendum No. 2 is hereby incorporated into the Contract Documents.

Purpose of Addendum:

The purpose of this addendum is to extend the bid opening date and provide responses to questions submitted by proposers. All clarifications, explanations, and additional information are now part of the Contract Documents.

Bid Opening Date: Extended from October 1, 2025, at 12:00 PM to October 6, 2025, at 12:00

PM.

Questions:

1. What is the desired timeframe for the analysis? Does EEA intend for this analysis to assess the gap between currently installed charging at hubs and what level of charging is needed in the future?

Response:

The Contractor will be expected to provide an initial list of identified EV fast charging hubs and fleet charging depots to EEA by February 11, 2026, with the final analysis completed by the end of March 2026.

The EV fast charging hub analysis will help identify ideal locations for fast chargers along the primary and secondary travel corridors identified in the Second EVICC Assessment to fill existing gaps in the fast charger network. EEA will work with the consultant to identify any additional analysis that would provide relevant insights for state and utility planning efforts and future programs regarding fast chargers along travel corridors.

2. Should the analysis approach (one of the evaluation factors) be included as part of the 6-page Narrative Section? If not, where should we include it?

Response:

Yes, the analysis approach should be included in the narrative section.

3. Is the intention for the consultant to identify specific sites using the quantity and hex-level locations from the second EVICC assessment? Or should the Consultant refine the quantity and locations for fast chargers identified in the second assessment? b. If the analysis should use outputs from the second EVICC assessment, is it based on CECP forecasts or BNEF/other forecasts? c. Should the underlying MHDV data be improved from the 2nd assessment using more granular data? If so, will it be an issue that these results differ from the 2nd assessment results?

Response:

a. The latter.

b. The EVICC Assessment used the CECP for its primary analysis. The analysis conducted for this work may use both the CECP and BNEF/other forecasts, as the intention is to identify near-term needs.

c. Yes. It will not be an issue if the analysis identifies different locations for MHDV chargers, as this analysis will be more geographically targeted.

4. What types (or FHWA classes) of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles should be included in the scope of the analysis? b. Can EEA provide a definition for charger hub including the number of chargers? c. At what level of resolution should the charging hub sites be identified (i.e. tax parcel, address-level, other.)?

Response:

All classes of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles should be included in the scope of the analysis. EEA plans to work with the chosen consultant and stakeholders to define “fast charging hub,” as it was not defined in law.

Hex or similar level of granularity will likely be sufficient to identify charging hub sites, but EEA will work with the consultant on the exact resolution prior to the beginning of work.

5. Are these related to long-distance travel or do they represent residential/other charging needs?

Response:

Fast charging hubs should support long-distance travel needs as well as short-distance and residential needs for drivers without access to off-street parking and fleet vehicle needs, as appropriate.

6. How does EEA intend for the consultants to use other external studies in the analysis (e.g., as data inputs, aligning assumptions, calibrating results)? b. Will EEA help the consultant obtain the output data from EPRI, National Grid, and other entities, such as mapping layers?

Response:

The contractor should plan to obtain any data needed, with assistance from EEA if needed. However, all data required for this task, as outlined in the RFQ, is either publicly available or will be provided by EEA.

7. What sort of feedback does EEA intend for the state agencies to provide? Is the intention for state agencies to provide input data, knowledge about specific sites, or play an advisory/QAQC role?

Response:

State agencies and key stakeholders will provide input on the proposed analytical approach, providing data inputs as available and appropriate, and feedback on the outputs of the analysis. The electric utilities and EVICC members will need to be active partners in providing input prior to beginning any analysis and on the outputs.

8. What sort of feedback does EEA intend for the stakeholders to provide? Is the intention for stakeholders to provide input data, knowledge about specific sites, or play an advisory/QAQC role?

See answer to prior question.

9. What is meant by "cost-effective...use of existing EDC infrastructure and rights-of-way?"

b. What is meant by "efficient use of rights-of-way"? c. Should the consultant use the second assessment grid impact results, or is EEA's intention that the consultant redo the grid impact analysis with updated utility data (peaks, grid capacity, etc.) d. Does EEA have a method in mind for assessing which sites "qualify for public funds"? e. Should emission reduction benefits be quantified for specific sites or should the qualitative reduction potential be included as a criteria for site selection? f. Can EEA elaborate on what is meant by the "value created for EV drivers"? g. Does EEA envision the consultant would develop a ranking or prioritization of the sites? If so, should stakeholder input be used to determine what is considered a "good site" or "less desirable site"?

Response:

EEA will work with the consultant to further refine the terms identified and to elaborate on how they should be applied to any analysis. Applicants may propose definitions and approaches to incorporating the identified terms based on their understanding of the Second EVICC Assessment and this RFQ.

10. In addition to a list of sites and the EVICC presentation, will be there be additional deliverables such as a written report or maps?

Response:

The consultant will need to document their methodology in a written document, which should detail the stakeholder engagement process taken and the how stakeholder input was reviewed and considered. Data layers that include the identified locations will also be required.

11. What format does EEA envision for this list should it be delivered as a dynamic, filterable dataset (e.g., Excel), as an interactive mapping tool with zooming/visualization capabilities, or as a static list/report with supporting maps?

Response:

EEA envisioned the list being delivered as a filterable dataset with supporting maps and

GIS data layers but would be open to an interactive mapping tool if it is within the identified budget.

12. Page 11 specifies, "A cost proposal, broken out by services listed in the scope, staff person, and hourly rate. Respondents must provide project-based pricing instead of the maximum billing rates established in PRF74." Page 6 states this is a rate-based proposal.

Please clarify pricing requirements: Is this T&M with a cap for each service? Will there be flexibility to move budget between tasks?

Response:

The consultant will be paid based on their time and materials up to an overall project cap, after which any time and materials to complete the agreed upon deliverables will be borne by the consultant. There will be flexibility to move budgets between tasks.

13. Is the expectation that bidders will conduct new modeling/forecasting or rely primarily on existing EVICC/EDC analyses (e.g., National Grid studies, EPRI eRoadMAP)?

Response:

EEA welcomes proposals for additional analysis, including new modeling/forecasting, that would complement the EVICC Assessment and achieve the desired outcomes of the RFQ. New modeling / forecasting is not a requirement for proposals.

14. What level of stakeholder engagement is expected advisory group meetings, public workshops, or surveys?

Response:

EEA anticipates holding several stakeholder meetings prior to the start of any analysis and several once the analysis is completed. EEA also anticipates using the public EVICC meetings to solicit as appropriate. EEA will work with the consultant on the appropriate level of stakeholder engagement, including whether an advisory group is necessary and appropriate.

15. If stakeholder engagement requires translation/interpretation services for EJ populations, should bidders include that in the budget?

Response:

Any translation or interpretation services needed would be arranged and paid for by EEA, and do not need to be included in the budget.

16. Will the contract be time-and-materials (rate-based) or fixed-price per deliverable? (The

RFQ references both rate-based and project-based pricing.)

Rate-based with an overall project cap for the agreed upon deliverables.

17. Will presentations to EVICC and stakeholders be in-person, virtual, or hybrid?

Presentations to EVICC and stakeholders will be virtual.

18. How will coordination with EDCs, MassDOT, DOER, and fleet operators be structured?

Should bidders propose facilitation or will EEA lead?

EEA recommends that bidders propose facilitation.

END OF ADDENDUM