Amend # 1 Vendor Q&A DQ EFAA 2027-87 Thermal Opportunity Mapping.pdf

RFP EFAA 27-87

Thermal Opportunity Mapping

Awarded Offeror Q&A

1. Task 3.5 sequencing. Task 3.5 requires a memorandum supporting the SB26-142 recommendations on or before November 15, 2026. Task 3 cannot begin until CEO accepts all Task 2 deliverables, Tasks 2.1 through 2.4 are due within 90 days of the purchase order effective date, and Task 1 consumes the first 30 days. On the solicitation's own award schedule, November 15 falls inside the Task 1 window. Please clarify the intended sequence, confirm whether Task 3.5 is delivered out of sequence, or adjust the date.

Answer: This sequence is an error and has been appropriately identified. The

Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC) is statutorily obligated to deliver recommendations for SB26-142 by November 15, 2026, to the State

Legislature, in part for consideration of the 2027 legislative session which starts

January 11, 2027. To clarify our intentions, we will:

Add “Task 1.5 - SB26-142 Integration: Draft a memo summary of the initiative to support the recommendations due by November 15, 2026”.

Modify Task 3.5 to “Task 3.5 - Update the memo summary of the initiative as a final version based on the current status of the project with any relevant new analysis being created from this solicitation within the first two weeks of the

Colorado Legislative Session.”

2. Teaming and the second subject matter expert. Please confirm that subconsultants are permitted, and whether personnel of a named subconsultant are considered within the

Awarded Respondent's organization for purposes of (a) the second subject matter expert review of technical methods, calculations and underlying datasets, and (b) the qualifications listed in Section 2.D.

Answer: Subconsultants are permitted, should be outlined in the DQ response, and may be considered for both purposes outlined in the question.

3. Appendix A. Appendix A, Purchase Order Terms and Conditions, was not included in the package, and Section 2 requires exceptions to those terms in the Executive Summary.

Please provide Appendix A before the quote deadline.

Answer: Appendix A was provided as a link in the Table of Contents. Please find the link below.

https://osc.colorado.gov/spco/central-contracts-unit/purchase-order-terms-conditions/state-of-colorado-purchase-order-terms

4. Intellectual property and data rights. Section 5.I addresses ownership of submitted response material but not the rights applying to the deliverables, which appear to sit in

Appendix A. Please confirm (a) whether the State takes ownership of or a license to the deliverable datasets, data dictionary, lineage documentation and symbology specifications, and (b) whether the Awarded Respondent retains ownership of its pre-existing methodologies, templates, scripts and internal tools and may reuse them on other engagements.

Answer: Yes, please refer to Section 4, Intellectual Property and Software

Licensing of ADDENDUM 1: Additional Terms & Conditions for Information

Technology in Appendix A.

5. Regarding Section 1.B, Background, paragraphs describing CEO’s prior evaluation of a statewide industrial waste heat mapping tool and existing stakeholder data efforts: Has the agency done any prior work on this project, and if so, can the State share the reports, datasets, assumptions, stakeholder feedback, or other work products that are available to respondents?

Answer: Through various incentive programs the State has had informal stakeholder consultation with some direct-use stakeholders, including hot springs and wastewater treatment facilities (see Colorado Geothermal Incentive Award

List). There has not been formal engagement with industrial facilities, though synergies with high-temperature industrial processes including steam heat pump utilization can naturally complement load balancing of thermal energy networks.

https://osc.colorado.gov/spco/central-contracts-unit/purchase-order-terms-conditions/state-of-colorado-purchase-order-terms https://osc.colorado.gov/spco/central-contracts-unit/purchase-order-terms-conditions/state-of-colorado-purchase-order-terms https://geothermal.colorado.gov/resources https://geothermal.colorado.gov/resources

7. Regarding Section 1.A, Introduction; Section 1.B, Background, paragraph identifying OIT’s role; and Section 3.J, Task 2 – Interactive Waste Heat Map, paragraphs on Task 2.4 Data Delivery, Task 2.5 Pilot Release, and OIT GIS Team approval: Because OIT is responsible for developing and releasing the platform, can the

State clarify whether delays in OIT review, integration, or pilot release affect the consultant’s schedule, final completion date, and eligibility for payment?

Answer: OIT-related delays will result in a day-for-day delay in vendor deadlines.

8. Regarding Section 1.C, Overview and Goals, paragraph beginning “Based on the shared needs and requirements across agencies”; Section 3.I, Task 1, especially Task 1.3 Prioritized Data Shortlist; Section 3.J, Task 2; Section 3.K, Task 3; and Section 3.N, Budget: Does the State expect respondents to complete every listed data layer, source-and-sink category, engineering calculation, case study, business case, stakeholder activity, and training deliverable within the $180,000 ceiling, or will the prioritized shortlist developed in Task 1 determine which Task 2 and Task 3 activities are completed?

Answer: All Task activities are to be completed within the $180,000 ceiling.

9. Regarding Section 1.C, Overview and Goals, paragraphs describing existing and newly mandated data streams and initially intended data or methods; and Section 3.J, Task 2.1 Data Collection & Standardization: Which datasets have already been obtained, reviewed, or prepared by CEO and participating agencies, and which datasets must the consultant independently identify, request, purchase, digitize, or develop? Can the agency provide those datasets for respondent review prior to proposal submission?

Answer: The following datasets have been obtained or reviewed by CEO and/or participating agencies:

● Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) database

● A well permit database (point shapefile) - which includes GHX installations

- data will be stored on imaged docs in LF

● A geophysical log database (point shapefile) that shows locations of geophysical logs run on water wells, stored as imaged docs in LF

● A Produced NT formations polygon shapefile that shows locations where groundwater is considered non tributary and could be used for determining allocated geothermal resource

● Building Performance Standards data

Review of these datasets is not currently available. The CEO will continue to collect these data sets for this solicitation in coordination with Vendor.

10. Regarding Section 1.C, Overview and Goals, paragraphs identifying agency data sources, including Building Performance Colorado, air permitting records, geothermal data, well data, and facility information; and Section 3.J, Task 2.1 Data Collection & Standardization: Will CEO facilitate access to state-held datasets— including Building Performance Colorado, air-permitting, geothermal, well, and facility-level information—or is the consultant responsible for negotiating data-access agreements with each agency?

Answer: CEO will facilitate access to state-held datasets.

11. Regarding Section 3.J, Task 2.1 Data Collection & Standardization; Section 3.J, Task 2.2 Waste Heat Potential Estimation; and Section 3.M, Acceptance Criteria:

Where facility-specific operating data are unavailable, does CEO expect the consultant to estimate heat availability using sector- or equipment-level assumptions? Should the map distinguish measured, facility-reported, permit-derived, modeled, and proxy estimates?

Answer: Subsector assumptions (e.g., brewery process heating requirements) should be applied where operating data is not available.

12. Regarding Section 3.J, Task 2.2 Waste Heat Potential Estimation, paragraph requiring calculation of potential waste heat using standard engineering assumptions and tiering opportunities as high, medium, and low: Should waste-heat potential represent theoretical heat, technically recoverable heat, economically recoverable heat, or heat available after accounting for internal facility reuse, operating schedules, temperature degradation, and system losses?

Answer: The State is currently in the initial phase of thermal opportunity mapping.

This initiative aims to gather sufficient data to launch stakeholder discussions and foster deeper deliberations on waste heat utilization. While the main focus remains on comprehensive data capture and presentation, any available granular detail should also be incorporated though technically recoverable heat is a key focus.

13. Regarding Section 3.J, Task 2.2 Waste Heat Potential Estimation and the Task 2.2 deliverable for the Waste Heat Potential & Tiering Report: Does CEO have an existing definition or preferred thresholds for the high-, medium-, and low-potential tiers, or should the consultant propose and validate the tiering methodology during Task 1?

Answer: The CEO team has discussed preliminary tiering concepts—recognizing distinct thresholds for low-grade applications like district energy/load balancing and high-grade industrial heat—but we expect the vendor to formally propose, validate, and document a finalized tiering methodology during Task 1. We look forward to the vendor’s expert recommendation on how to best bridge these sector-specific requirements.

14. Regarding Section 3.J, Task 2.2 Waste Heat Potential Estimation and the Task 2.2 deliverable for the Waste Heat Potential & Tiering Report: Will the agency provide waste-heat estimation methodologies for the consultant, or will the consultant be expected to develop engineered calculations? If the consultant must formulate the calculations, will screening-level estimates be acceptable for waste heat estimating or tiering?

Answer: The vendor will be tasked with developing the waste heat methodology.

Screening-level estimates are acceptable, and indeed encouraged, for the initial phase to identify and tier high-potential opportunities. We expect these initial assessments to serve as a 'red-light/green-light' screening tool to filter out non-viable options before the vendor applies more rigorous engineered calculations or detailed analysis to the most promising candidates.

15. Regarding Section 3.J, Task 2.3 Overlay Analysis and the Task 2.3 deliverable for Integrated Feasibility Layers: What constitutes “basic feasibility scoring”? Should it include only proximity, capacity, and temperature compatibility, or also ownership, rights-of-way, elevation, infrastructure barriers, seasonal alignment, utility conditions, permitting, economics, and source reliability?

Answer: The latter list would be preferred, but proximity, capacity, and temperature compatibility are the expectation.

16. Regarding Section 3.K, Task 3.1 Case Study Selection & Analysis and the Task 3.1 deliverable for case study analysis of 2–4 high-potential connections: Does CEO expect desktop screening-level analyses or preliminary engineering analyses? Are site visits, stakeholder interviews, load profiles, conceptual system designs, lifecycle financial models, and emissions estimates expected?

Answer: For the 2–4 high-potential connections, the CEO expects a deeper dive than a desktop screening. This analysis should include the development of representative load profiles for industry actors in opportunity zones identified through Task 2, and preliminary assessments of conceptual system configurations. We expect the vendor to utilize site-specific data where available to enhance these case studies; however, we acknowledge that the depth of analysis—including specific load data—may be subject to unforeseen data-sharing limitations among study participants. CEO has preliminarily identified several high-potential locations and will work with the selected vendor to incorporate these, alongside any new opportunities uncovered during the mapping process.

17. Regarding Section 3.K, Task 3.2 Technical & Business Implementation; Section 3.K, Task 3.3 Cost Estimation; and Section 3.K, Task 3 Key Deliverables: Will CEO provide standard assumptions for energy prices, escalation rates, discount rates, project life, financing, incentives, avoided emissions, and social cost of carbon, or should the consultant develop and document these assumptions?

Answer: Vendor will develop and document these assumptions, with CEO final approval needed.

18. Regarding Section 1.B, Background, paragraph listing data centers as waste heat sources; Section 3.I, Task 1.2 Heat Source & Sink Inventory; Section 3.J, Task 2.1 Data Collection & Standardization; Section 3.J, Task 2.2 Waste Heat Potential Estimation; and Section 6.K, Submission of Confidential or Proprietary Information:

For data-center waste heat, does CEO expect the consultant to identify individual existing and planned facilities, estimate heat using capacity or proxy data, and engage operators directly? How should commercially sensitive information concerning capacity, cooling systems, uptime, and outlet temperatures be handled?

Answer: The vendor is expected to identify individual existing and planned data center facilities and aggregate available data to the extent possible. Where direct operational data is unavailable, the vendor should rely on reasonable proxy data.

19. Regarding Section 1.B, Background, paragraphs identifying ECMC, DWR, and CGS roles; and Section 1.C, Overview and Goals, initially intended data or methods list under DWR data: The data list appears to associate individual oil and gas wells and deep-geothermal information with DWR, while the background identifies ECMC and CGS as the relevant deep-geothermal and well-data entities. Please confirm which agency owns or will provide each geothermal and well dataset.

Answer:

Both the Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC) and the Division of Water Resources (DWR) are operating in close coordination with the Colorado

Energy Office (CEO). To clarify:

● Division of Water Resources (DWR): DWR's permit database includes open-system geothermal wells constructed prior to 2023, and open-system geothermal wells shallower than 2,500 feet constructed after 2023. DWR's well permit database may additionally contain deep wells constructed for other purposes that can be used to collect data.

● ECMC and the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS): These agencies have additional information related to existing borehole infrastructure, notably the datasets utilized for the 2024 Geothermal In Colorado: Resources, Use Strategies and Impact Considerations report.

20. Regarding Section 1.B, Background, paragraph identifying OIT’s role; Section 3.J, Task 2.4 Data Delivery; Appendix E, Required Data Formats; and Appendix F, Documentation & Metadata Standards: Will OIT provide an ArcGIS data schema, naming conventions, coordinate systems, attribute requirements, metadata templates, validation procedures, and sample packages at project initiation? Will OIT participate in

Task 1 so technical requirements are resolved before data development begins?

Answer: All data should be prepared within the bounds of the requirements in

Appendix A & B and well documented. Furthermore, these appendices list guidance for coordinate systems and metadata. OIT will be available to ensure technical requirements are met and the CEO asks respondents to, again, fully understand Appendix A & B requirements.

21. Regarding Section 1.C, Overview and Goals, paragraph referencing use of the EMB3RS model or other tools: Is use of EMB3RS expected, preferred, or offered only as an example? If EMB3RS is expected, will the State provide access, hosting, technical support, or existing model configurations?

Answer: EMB3RS is provided as an example and is not expected to be used.

22. Regarding Section 2.D, Highly Desired/Preferred Qualifications, paragraph identifying demonstrated experience with geospatial analysis and database development with open-source tools; Section 3.J, Task 2.4 Data Delivery; Appendix E, Required Data Formats; and Appendix F, Documentation & Metadata Standards:

Must all analytical workflows be developed with open-source software, or may respondents use licensed commercial software such as ArcGIS Pro? Must submitted code be executable entirely within the State’s environment without consultant-owned licenses?

Answer: Yes, ArcGIS Pro may be used, and data lineage and process methodology must be documented per Appendix B. OIT GIS will only be hosting https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/publications/geothermal-resource-strategies-impact-data-colorado-2024/ https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/publications/geothermal-resource-strategies-impact-data-colorado-2024/ the final data (not replicating the process here), but it is necessary for CEO to know the exact processing methodology in case we (CEO) need to understand something at a deeper level.

23. Regarding Section 3.I, Task 1 Agency Coordination and Mapping Prioritization;

Section 3.J, Task 2.5 Pilot Release; Section 3.K, Task 3.4 Stakeholder Engagement;

and Section 3.L, Task 4 Project Management: Approximately how many agency meetings, facility interviews, developer consultations, pilot users, and stakeholder-engagement sessions should respondents assume beyond the required kickoff and monthly meetings?

Answer: CEO expects active coordination across tasks, but we look to the vendor to propose a realistic and effective level of effort in their work plan. This flexible structure allows respondents the opportunity to propose approaches for stakeholder engagement and data gathering. Existing relationships with applicable staff members at each participating agency are already in place to facilitate these connections.

24. Regarding Section 3.I, Task 1.1, which names CEO, CDPHE, ECMC, CGS, and DNR;

Section 1.B, Background, which identifies OIT and DWR roles; and Section 3.J, Task 2.4, which requires coordination with OIT GIS: Please confirm the participating agencies and whether CEO will schedule and facilitate their participation.

Answer: Participating agencies include all those outlined in the question. The

CEO will work with the vendor to schedule and facilitate participation. Existing relationships with applicable staff members at each agency currently exist.

25. Regarding Section 3, Scope of Work/Specifications, paragraph requiring all deliverables and backup/input documents to be checked by a second SME; and Section 3.M, Acceptance Criteria: Must the required second subject-matter expert be independent of the project team, or may a qualified senior team member who participates in limited project activities serve as the reviewer? Should respondents budget for review of every underlying dataset and calculation or only each final deliverable?

Answer: A qualified senior team member reviewing the final deliverables is acceptable.

26. Regarding Section 2.A, Accessibility Requirements, including the provisions for either an independent third-party evaluation or VPAT; Section 4.C, Quote Format and Content, Accessibility Requirements; and Appendix C, Accessibility Vendor Document Checklist: For this consulting engagement, does the State require a third-party accessibility evaluation or VPAT at proposal submission, or is completion of

Appendix C and a commitment to produce WCAG-compliant documents, guides, tables, and maps sufficient?

Answer: The completion of Appendix C and a written commitment to produce

WCAG-compliant documents, guides, tables, and maps and the acknowledgement that you can comply with all accessibility requirements, including any requests for compliance reports if awarded, will be sufficient.

27. Regarding Section 1.A, Introduction; Section 1.B, Background, paragraph identifying OIT’s responsibility for the public GIS platform; Section 2.A, Accessibility Requirements; and Section 3.J, Task 2.4 Data Delivery: Because OIT will develop the public ArcGIS platform, is the consultant responsible for accessibility only within its documents, datasets, metadata, and public-facing guide, while OIT remains responsible for accessibility of the interface and interactive functionality?

Answer: Yes, this assumption is correct.

28. Regarding Section 4.C, Quote Format and Content, paragraph establishing the 15-page limit and excluding resumes, example documents, and attachments; and the subsections requiring appendices, a detailed budget, and accessibility documentation: Please confirm that resumes, project examples, required appendices, the detailed cost table, and accessibility documentation are all excluded from the 15-page limit.

Answer: As stated in Section 4.C. of the DQ, “Responses should be no longer than 15 pages in total, not including resumes, example documents to illustrate

Respondent’s past project experience, or attachments.” The cost proposal will not be included in your page total if provided as an attachment.