Amend # 1 Vendor Q&A RFP EFAA 2027-06 CPRG Accelerator Research and Best Practices (final).docx

RFP EFAA 7-06

CPRG Accelerator Research and Best Practices Awarded Offeror Q&A

1. How will the work of the Awarded Offeror be sequenced with the second round of the Local IMPACT Accelerator Grants? The dates in the Local IMPACT Accelerator Grant Program Guidance show them happening in parallel with the timeline given in this RFP, but it seems the RFP is meant to inform that second round of Accelerator funding?

Answer: The second round of Accelerator application reviews is complete, and all funding has been awarded. By the time the Awarded Offeror begins work, Round 2 contract negotiations will be finalized, and these grantees will have begun their projects. Therefore, the scope of work outlined in this RFP will not inform the Round 2 funding decisions.

Rather, because the launch of both Round 1 and Round 2 projects will roughly coincide with the start of this research contract, the scope of work has been sequenced to schedule the grantee research and evaluation components for a later stage of the project timeline.

2. Re: Automobile Liability, for a single-member LLC with no company-owned vehicles and no employees, will a personal auto policy that meets Colorado statutory liability standards satisfy the contract requirements?

Answer: Yes, for the LLC if the single employee has their own insurance, they are fine. They should still meet the $1M amount on it though.

3. Re: Protected Information Liability, because this project involves qualitative research rather than hosting State datasets or processing citizen PII, will the state accept a lower cyber liability sub-limit (e.g., $250,000)?

Answer: If the contractor will not have access to any protected information under the Agreement, we can waive this coverage.

4. Re: Crime Insurance, given that this is a single-member entity with no employees, can the commercial crime/employee dishonesty insurance requirement be waived entirely?

Answer: If the contractor is not taking or distributing money on behalf of the state, this coverage can be waived.

5. Can you identify the firm(s) that previously supported CEO and DOLA in the work that informed the development of the current Local IMPACT Accelerator?

Answer: The Local IMPACT Accelerator is a CEO program. The core program design and Program Guidance were developed in-house by CEO staff, who also led the initial comparative research into similar initiatives in other cities and states. Lotus Engineering & Sustainability provided the underlying technical details, modeling, and assumptions that informed this program design.

While the Awarded Offeror may incorporate this existing technical analysis into their final work product, the scope of work for this RFP focuses on research and concept extrapolation. The CEO does not expect the Awarded Offeror to generate new datasets or perform data modeling.

DOLA partnered with the CEO on this initiative to advance its own resilience efforts, aligning with Local IMPACT Accelerator goals to enhance local climate resilience and strengthen state/local government coordination. DOLA staff also participate on the applicant review committee. Proposers can find links to related DOLA programs and initiatives within the RFP.

Please note that any use of environmental data—classified by the EPA as Environmental Information Operations (EIO)—will require additional forms and approvals before such data can be researched, reviewed, or utilized by the Awarded Offeror, CEO, or DOLA. As such, the Awarded Offeror should focus on non-EIO work. Proposals may reference high- or low-level impacts, but the Awarded Offeror should not seek to quantify associated greenhouse gas (GHG) or primary air pollutant reductions without the proper Quality Assurance (QA) documentation and approvals in place.

7. The RFP states the State intends to award multiple offerors. Can the State clarify whether it intends to award multiple firms to perform separate portions of the Scope of Work, or whether each awarded offeror is expected to be capable of delivering the entire Scope of Work independently?

Answer: This was an error. The State intends to award only one Offeror.

8. Has the Colorado Energy Office already completed any formal evaluation of the current Local IMPACT Accelerator program, or should respondents assume this evaluation will begin from a clean slate? If evaluations or performance metrics exist, will they be made available to the awarded consultant?

Answer: The CEO has not undertaken any formal evaluations. The Awarded Offeror will initiate this process. However, as noted above, because grantees are not yet fully contracted and work will only be initially underway, the evaluation should first focus the program design, what other states are doing, and the details outlined and as sequenced in the RFP.

9. The Scope of Work includes extensive stakeholder engagement across State agencies, regional coordinators, local governments, and other partners. Does the State anticipate leading participant recruitment and scheduling, or should respondents assume responsibility for these activities?

Answer: Offerors will help lead participant scheduling, but it is expected that a significant portion (if not all) recruitment will be done by DOLA and the CEO - primarily using DOLA’s pre-existing State and local contacts who have supported the Development of past State Resiliency Framework updates. This list is not publicly available and lives with DOLA. The CEO may also supplement with additional contacts including Accelerator Regional Coordinators and grantees (if they are not already included in DOLA’s list. Both DOLA and the CEO maintain a list of contacts with local governments which regularly receive information from DOLA and the CEO. As stakeholder efforts begin, additional contacts may be obtained from those discussions (e.g. others to include). However, no formal recruitment process is anticipated being led by the Awarded Offeror, although the CEO and DOLA may be amenable to the Awarded Offeror sharing through its own networks, contact list, social media, etc.

10. Section 4 states that company profiles, resumes, cost sheets, and attachments are excluded from the 20-page proposal limit. Can the State confirm that appendices containing representative work products are also excluded from the page count?

Answer: Yes. The State confirms that appendices containing representative work products are excluded from the total page count.

11. The RFP requests detailed information regarding AI governance. Is the State seeking organizational AI policies only, or project-specific procedures describing how AI would be governed for this engagement?

Answer: The State’s goal with this question is to understand how an Offeror uses AI in developing their work product both generally as well as specifically for this project. An understanding of your organizational policies as well as project-specific procedures help us to determine how your organization manages data privacy, intellectual property rights, compliance risks associated with generative AI tools, the level of human oversight, quality control and accountability applied to AI-generated deliverables, quality assurance measures, ethical safeguards integrated into your delivery model, the alignment between your technical approach and our security requirements, and the ultimate viability of your proposed solution. In short, if AI is being used, the CEO and DOLA want to know how and to ensure that it is being used in an appropriate manner (e.g. using AI to help summarize or refine human written notes or reports but not used to fully write those deliverables).

12. The RFP indicates a desired start date of November 9, 2026. Subsequently, each task includes a deliverable deadline. Task 3 includes completion of engagement within 12 months of the contract date and delivering a synthesis memo within 13 months of the contract date. Task 4 includes a deadline for an engagement plan within 13 months of the contract with completion of the engagement by November 1, 2027, and completion of the interim report by December 1, 2027. Assuming a contract start date of November 9, 2026, Task 4 deadlines are expected at the same time as task 3 deliverables. Can you confirm the timeline for tasks 3 and 4? Should phase 2 engagement occur concurrently with phase 1 or should task 3 or 4 deadlines be shifted?

Answer: This work was originally estimated to begin in July/August. As such, a November start date shifts things by at least 3 months. The CEO and DOLA are amenable to the Awarded Offeror providing its own revised timeline as makes sense to robustly schedule and collect meaningful stakeholder feedback, turn around summaries or draft documents, allow for the CEO and DOLA to provide feedback (e.g. edits and direction) and complete subsequent tasks. What seems most advantageous is leveraging DOLA’s annual Resilience Summit in January for DOLA/CEO staff to provide meaningful updates and details on any upcoming events/engagement opportunities. Because the first of January (January 2027) is so close to the start date, the CEO and DOLA understand the first year's update may not be significant. There is also significant time between the final task(s) and the initial tasks (as noted in question 13) which could be changed to accommodate the timeline starting in November. In all cases, it is not anticipated the final completion date could push given the life of the EPA grant (e.g. the project needs to end on time but there is flexibility on when tasks start and finish within that timeframe)

13. The RFP indicates that the Task 4 interim report is due by February 1, 2028. Task 5 indicates that the sector briefs and final report is due May 1, 2029. Can you confirm the timeline for Task 5 is 15 months from February 1, 2028, through May 1, 2029? Do you expect sector brief development to occur concurrently with development of the final report?

Answer: Most accelerator projects and some policies will not wrap up until the Spring or Summer of 2029. The sector briefs are timed concurrently to allow the Awarded Offeror time to fully access the outcomes of any grantees that will not be done earlier that the Awarded Offeror thinks should be included in the sector briefs. Ultimately the sector briefs are a compendium to the report that is more specifically focused on the actual grantees work whereas the report is more high level (e.g. focused on how to design an even better program regardless of specific grantee projects, but potentially informed by those grantees experience, direction, or high-level outcomes). Ultimately, the report is meant to be interpretive with subsequent drafts across the project with ample time for a final report to be edited/informed by the CEO and DOLA. The Sector Briefs should ultimately accompany the true final as an addendum, appendix or similar. As noted in question 12, Offerors can suggest an adjusted timeline as they think works best for meeting the tasks given the timeline has now been pushed to a November start date (from an originally anticipated start date in July/August). Also noted in question 12, is that DOLA/CEO are trying to capitalize on January Resiliency Summit events DOLA holds to share information (although actual document drafts may/may not be shared at those events).

14. Do you have any concerns about conflicts of interest with respondents that are already working with the CEO on other CPRG related projects?

Answer: While the evaluation committee will consider these situations on a case-by-case basis, the CEO does not anticipate any conflicts of interest with Offerors who are actively servicing other CPRG-related projects.

15. Tasks 2.1 and 2.2 include engagement with the CEO, DOLA, other State agencies, jurisdictions, and regional coordinator staff. The scope lists a specific number of expected interviews with jurisdictions. Is there an expected level of engagement with the CEO, DOLA, other State agencies and regional coordinator staff (e.g., select 4 RCs for interviews)?

Answer: The CEO expects the Offeror to propose a level of engagement with staff that is appropriate for achieving the project objectives.

16. The scope includes development of an initial, interim, and final version of the Gap Analysis, Accelerator 2.0 Approach, and Best Practices Report. What is the desired level of structuring, design, and accessibility compliance for each version?

Answer: The CEO has generally found that starting from an accessible template can help to ensure subsequent drafts build from this. However, it is also easy to break accessible formatting when editing, etc. It would be accepted that working drafts may not fully be accessible as they are being developed but any interim drafts that will be shared with the public and any final drafts will be fully accessible. The former can be determined with the Awarded Offeror as the timeline is refined.

17. Can you provide additional context on how you expect Phase 1 and Phase 2 engagement to interact?

Answer: Phase 1 engagement is expected to be broad and include larger groups of in-person and online stakeholders. Phase 2 engagement is expected to be more of a small group setting with key subject matter experts and senior leaders who can ideally be in person and work to help inform details, overcome challenges, suggest alternatives, etc.

18. Will focus group participants in Phase 2 be pulled from Phase 1 participants or a new set of participants?

Answer: It’s possible but it may not always be the case. This will be determined by the CEO and DOLA. As noted in Question 9, the CEO and DOLA will primarily lead recruitment, but it’s expected that through Phase 1 stakeholdering the Awarded Offeror and CEO/DOLA will learn about additional people that should be engaged. Additionally, DOLA and the CEO may have key stakeholders (e.g. subject matter experts; senior leaders) in mind they would like to reserve to inform final decisions. This is not a preexisting list and will be developed throughout the process depending on what the initial research and stakeholder work uncovers.

19. For 2.1d. Can the CEO provide data on the communication pathways that were used to promote the Accelerator including relevant data that helps understand how recipients engaged with the website, newsletters, events, etc?

Answer: The CEO will share available data related to communication pathways once the Offeror is selected. However, this was primarily done using the CEO and DOLA’s extensive network of local governments since both agencies work across all 64 counties, 270+ cities and two federally recognized Tribes. Generally, email communication and webinars directed interested parties back to the Accelerator landing page. Some information was also shared in municipal and county focused nonprofits like the Colorado Municipal League and Colorado Counties Inc.

20. Given that several major deliverables are scheduled over a period extending through May 2029, would the CEO consider alternative work plans that accelerate completion of the analyses, stakeholder engagement, and final deliverables if the Offeror can demonstrate equivalent outcomes and quality?

Answer: Yes. See the responses to the questions above regarding how the timeline may shift given the (now) expected November start date. Also noted in those responses above are the desire to take advantage of DOLA’s annual Resiliency Summit (in January) and the fact that the end date for the total project will not change.

21. The Scope of Work includes multiple iterations of the Gap Analysis, Accelerator 2.0 Approach, and Best Practices Report (initial, interim, and final). Would the CEO be open to a streamlined reporting structure that combines certain interim deliverables while still meeting the project objectives?

Answer: Yes. See the response to Question 20 and related questions on timeline. Because timelines have shifted to a November start date and because many of the tasks are iterative and sequenced to stack, there could very well be efficiencies that we have not contemplated but would be open to hearing so long as the overall timing and sequencing is maintained.

22. Can the CEO provide its anticipated minimum expectations regarding the number of stakeholder engagement sessions, workshops, focus groups, and participants required under Tasks 3 and 4? Would alternative engagement approaches be considered if they achieve representative statewide participation?

Answer: The CEO expects respondents to adhere to the Scope of Work. The CEO will work with the Awarded Offeror to determine the level of engagement required to achieve the project objectives. While the RFP outlines suggested numbers, CEO/DOLA also expect this could be flexible and will need to work with the Awarded Offeror to determine the appropriate number of events, which would be online, which would be in-person, where they are held, etc. If alternative approaches such as surveys or other means would be advantageous, CEO/DOLA would be open to including those elements but feel there is value in getting people together for most of these events.

23. To what extent does CEO/DOLA anticipate assisting the Awarded Offeror with stakeholder recruitment and meeting logistics? May Offerors assume substantial utilization of existing CEO/DOLA stakeholder networks and communication channels in developing their cost estimates?

Answer: This is addressed in greater detail in Question 9. CEO/DOLA would largely lead recruitment efforts as stated in this question and would not expect recruitment to account for a substantial part of a proposed bid. However, the Awarded Offeror may help promote or otherwise support CEO/DOLA in these efforts on some minor level.

24. What existing program evaluation materials, participation data, outreach records, surveys, and program documentation will be made available to the Awarded Offeror for the Accelerator assessment?

Answer: This is also touched on in questions above. There has been no official program evaluation, but the focus is more on the program design, future opportunities and how to design a better program. There is some focus on documenting what happened in the existing Acceletor program, and the CEO can share some early survey feedback and any Accelerator documents with the Awarded Offeror.

25. Does the CEO anticipate that Offerors may propose alternative methodologies, prioritization strategies, or refined work plans to maximize value within the fixed budget of $338,000?

Answer: The CEO expects respondents to adhere to the Scope of Work envisioned in the RFP. The CEO and DOLA have put a lot of thought into what they’d like to get from this effort, and the RFP is sequenced to deliver that. However, if there are suggestions that truly add value, CEO/DOLA would be open to hearing ideas. Likely, this would be better left to discussion with the Awarded Offeror as approaches are refined throughout the process rather than big initial changes to scope now.

26. The solicitation describes this as a "firm-fixed-rate engagement" in the Cost Proposal section but instructs the awardee to invoice on a "time and materials basis" in the Invoicing section. Which contract structure governs, and how should offerors structure their cost proposal accordingly?

Answer: The contract structure is a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract. The requirement to invoice on a "time and materials basis" refers to the billing mechanism for verifying completed tasks, not the contract type itself. The contract establishes fixed hourly rates by labor category that cannot be altered or escalated over the course of the engagement.

Offerors must structure their cost proposals to provide full visibility into how their total fixed price was determined. Proposals should include labor category breakdowns that clearly define labor categories aligned with the statement of work. The breakdown should also include fully burdened hourly rates. These fixed hourly rates for each category will remain constant throughout performance. The breakdown should include estimated hours which show the projected level of effort per task or milestone.

This granular pricing data serves a dual purpose: it allows the evaluation team to determine if the proposed rates are fair and reasonable, and it establishes the baseline rates that will govern any subsequent, small-scope contract modifications.

While invoices will track actual hours worked against specific tasks, the underlying labor rates are fixed, and the overall contract remains bound by the firm-fixed-price structure.

27. The SOW implies that non-environmental-information work can proceed before the SAP is approved. Can the State confirm that Tasks 2.1 (Accelerator review), 2.2 (state climate program review), 2.3 (peer state review), and 3.1 (engagement planning) are not contingent on SAP approval, and what is the anticipated EPA review timeline once a SAP is submitted?

Answer: This topic is complicated and nuanced. It will be discussed in length with the Awarded Offeror and is not always black and white. In general, an Offeror looking to outline a plan can consider that environmental information or environmental information operations (EIO) relates more to numeric data collection related to things like greenhouse gases, emissions, air quality, etc. This is the EIO that the CEO expects is most likely to come up. Generally, looking at program design, financing structures, asking public opinion as it relates to program preferences, drafting memos that discuss processes, and similar efforts are not EIO. However, it’s not straightforward as even numeric things like population would not be EIO, but relating population to the emission they produce would be. Discussing a program's impact on emissions such as stating that one program was expected to have higher emissions reductions impacts or lower emissions impacts without researching or collecting actual numeric data would likely not be EIO.

28. Will the CEO and DOLA facilitate introductions and coordinate access to partner State agencies (DOLA, CDPHE, CDOT, DNR), Accelerator awardees, non-awardee applicants, and jurisdictions that dropped out of the process? Or is the Awarded Offeror expected to independently schedule and coordinate those contacts?

Answer: This will be facilitated by the CEO, but engagement may be determined by the extent to which those entities are open to discussing why they did not proceed.

29. 2 CFR 200.1 prohibits the acquisition of intangible property under this award. Can the State clarify whether this restriction affects the Awarded Offeror’s ability to retain rights to methodologies, frameworks, or publications produced under the contract, and whether the Awarded Offeror may publish or otherwise disseminate findings consistent with its standard organizational practices?

Answer: This has been formally amended by EPA in the CEO's award and should not impact this effort. This initially came up when a grantee was looking to use software and the CEO successfully worked to remove this clause from its award due to its limiting nature. The example provided should not be an issue.

30. The Scope of Work requires at least one in-person West Slope event. Are travel and event logistics costs for this event expected to be covered within the $338,000 contract ceiling, or will the State provide supplemental funding or direct event support separately?

Answer: The CEO expects respondents to present a budget that anticipates all costs associated with the project and that this budget will not exceed the $338,000 contract ceiling. The CEO and DOLA would not expect this cost to be high and that the Awarded Offeror costs would be mitigated by the location on the West Slope (that could even support a day trip), CEO/DOLA staff attending and supporting, the Awarded Offeror reducing the number of staff sent to the event, the Awarded Offeror supplementing with some support staff online, etc.

31. What engagement-related costs are allowable (e.g., venue rental, refreshments, printing, participant travel support), and will CEO/DOLA provide venue space or logistical coordination for in-person events?

Answer: The CEO and DOLA would likely work with partners to try and identify event spaces that can be used for free or low cost. Because a lot of the costs noted may be seen as allowable but present higher risk or be scrutinized more, it’s desirable to limit those costs where possible. Of the costs noted, likely many of these (or all) could be funded but, like the venue, CEO/DOLA would likely opt for in-house printing, limiting refreshment costs, and not offering participant travel support - especially as these could eat up funds across the many events. Instead, it may be more desirable to limit the length of events, allow online options or employ other cost mitigating tactics.

32. Task 5.1 requires Sector Briefs produced "at or near the conclusion of Accelerator funded subrecipient work," with drafts due February 1, 2029. Can the CEO provide the anticipated completion timeline for Round 1 and Round 2 subaward projects? Specifically, when are the majority of subrecipient policy adoptions and project implementations expected to be substantially complete, and will the CEO facilitate contractor access to subrecipients for case study data collection?

Answer: These vary. See question 28. Also, it is not expected that sector briefs, although they could, would necessarily cover all 35 accelerator awards. Rather, they are generally expected to feature the most ambitious and successful awards. That will need to be determined between the CEO and the Awarded Offeror. As such, it’s not possible to say when those specific grantee projects/policies will be wrapped up. Broadly, policies are completed first and projects follow, but this is not always the case.

33. Please confirm that Appendix C: Accessibility Vendor Checklist is not included in the page count. Please confirm whether Appendix C should be included as an Appendix to the technical proposal volume or as a separate attachment.

Answer: Appendix C: Accessibility Vendor Checklist can be included as a separate attachment. It is not included in the total page count.

34. Please confirm whether resumes should be included as an appendix to the technical proposal volume (excluded from the page count) or a separate attachment (excluded from the page count).

Answer: You can include the resumes as an appendix or a separate attachment. Either way, they do not count towards the total page count.

35. Please confirm if the entire Cost File, including Budget Narrative, is excluded from the page limits.

Answer: The Cost File and the Budget Narrative are excluded from the total page count.

36. Does the Office have a target budget or not-to-exceed amount for this engagement?

Answer: The budget ceiling for this project is $338,000.

37. Which State climate programs are the primary focus for research and best-practices deliverables?

Answer: Specific resilience and climate work are featured within the RFP. Additional resources can be discussed with the Awarded Offeror and may evolve as the project continues given the vast number of climate programs across State agencies that are not all centrally located. This is not expected to be exhaustive and is expected to be work that’s supported and directed by CEO/DOLA through the kickoff meeting and thereafter.

38. Is the intended audience for the deliverables primarily local governments, Tribes, or State agency staff?

Answer: State agency staff are the primary audience for project deliverables.

39. What existing CPRG materials, inventories, or measure lists will the Office provide at the outset?

Answer: The CEO would share documents that are necessary and helpful. It is unlikely that providing the Awarded Offeror with multiple files will be as helpful as curating what’s provided to minimize the Awarded Offeror’s research on the Accelerator itself. Some of this may be best done through discussions with staff. However, the CEO would provide information on the 35 accelerator applicants, initial survey work, access to Regional Coordinators, key local contacts, details on who may have dropped out, lessons staff learned, etc. Broader CPRG materials may only be so helpful but if it is helpful, the CEO would work to consider how and support the Awarded Offeror with that documentation.

40. How many case studies or best-practice profiles do the Office anticipate?

Answer: Outside of specific numbers noted in the RFP, this is expected to be a conversation with the Awarded Offeror as the work develops and may need to remain flexible. There are also several places in the RFP that this question may be referencing whether that’s looking at other State examples or looking at the Sector Briefs (which are discussed in Questions 13 and 32).

41. What is the anticipated contract start date and period of performance?

Answer: While page 9 of the RFP indicates a targeted contract start date of November 9, 2026, this timeline is tentative and subject to change based on several variables. However, CEO/DOLA desires to have a kickoff meeting before the end of the year and the project underway before the end of 2026.

42. How should bidders distinguish the requested work from the technical assistance, modeling, evaluation, or reporting already being provided to the CEO’s IMPACT Accelerator?

Answer: The technical assistance being provided to the CEO/Accelerator is fundamentally and completely different. The Accelerator’s Technical Support involves modeling, grantee technical assistance and reporting to EPA. None of those things are elements of this Best Practices effort. This best practices effort is aimed at evaluating what worked well, what could work better and how to sustainably fund and scale a future Accelerator effort if it was ever to be done again. The RFP has no overlap with the RFP for the Technical Contractors work although it’s possible that the Technical Contractor could provide input on the final work products of the Best Practices effort or otherwise support the efforts as needed and directed by CEO. Also see question 5.

43. Are firms currently supporting the CEO or the IMPACT Accelerator eligible to bid, and are there any conflict-of-interest or organizational separation requirements they should address?

Answer: The firm(s) already supporting the Accelerator would be eligible to bid. However, the work is very different, there is no inherent preference to those firms, and the winning bid will be scored fairly based on the quality of the bid and the criteria outlined in the bid. Also see question 5 and 42. To be transparent, if a vendor is bidding on this RFP and is concerned about a potential conflict, they will need to detail what they are currently doing with the State and detail why there is no real or potential conflict of interest.

44. Which parts of the Scope are the CEO's highest priorities if the available budget does not support the same level of effort across every task?

Answer: The CEO expects the budget is ample to fully address all areas of the RFP. A bid that does not adequately address all areas of the RFP sufficiently and robustly would likely not be successful. All areas are equally important.

45. What program data, participant information, previous analyses, and internal documents will the CEO make available to the Awarded Offeror?

Answer: See question 24.

46. Does the CEO expect the Awarded Offeror to directly engage participating local governments and other stakeholders? If so, approximately how many interviews, meetings, workshops, or site visits should bidders assume?

Answer: See question 9 and 22. Also see estimated numbers outlined in the RFP.

47. How does the CEO expect responsibilities to be divided between its staff, existing contractors, participating communities, and the Awarded Offeror?

Answer: See question 9 and 22.

48. Who are the primary audiences for the final research and recommendations, and does the CEO expect public-facing products in addition to internal deliverables?

Answer: The CEO expects there will be interim work products, but the final document should be public facing. The ultimate audience is Colorado leadership at CEO, DOLA and key decision makers at the local and state levels. Because this is an EPA work product, this is also deliverable to EPA fulfilling a component of the scope of its CPRG grant. Also see question 18, 20 and 21.

49. Will the Colorado Energy Office make available any existing internal reports, evaluations, or documentation regarding the current Accelerator program's performance to date, to support the review described under Task 2.1?

Answer: See question 24 (and 45).