RFP EFAA 27-67

Building Performance Colorado Database Management Administration Amendment #2 Vendor Questions & Answers

1. Is the desired start date of the contract 1/1/2027 and the deliverables to be accepted 1/30/2027?

Answer: Yes. Start dates are estimated and may change in either direction depending on circumstances.

2. Section 5.3.3 lists four evaluation criteria in no particular order but does not state relative weights. Could you please confirm whether the Colorado Energy Office will publish weights or the order or relative importance used for evaluation?

Answer: The evaluation will be done as a total value evaluation. This is a structured decision-making method that compares all aspects of the bid to the stated needs of the State using the total value of the proposal to make the award decision. This allows for a full discussion of the merits of all criteria responses to find the overall best value for the state using all criteria without one factor having a stronger value than another.

3. Confirm that the accessibility criterion remains pass/fail as stated in Section.

Answer: While the criterion for accessibility remains pass/fail, it does not automatically disqualify an Offeror from award. The intent is to determine the extent of an Offeror’s understanding of accessibility, their current level of compliance, and their ability to create fully compliant materials. Colorado law requires all information technology provided to the State to conform to the technical standards that are the applicable and achievable success criteria of WCAG 2.1, levels A and AA.

4. Please confirm whether each minimum experience qualification under Section 2.1 is a mandatory pass/fail condition. If an Offeror demonstrates comparable technical experience and a credible delivery plan but does not fully meet one historical experience requirement, would the proposal be excluded before technical and price evaluation?

Answer: Minimum qualifications have to be met as presented in the RFP for an Offeror to be eligible.

5. May the required three years of building performance/utility-program experience and three years of multi-channel Help Center experience be established through multiple engagements rather than one continuous contract?

Answer: Multiple engagements are acceptable.

6. May the experience of the prime, proposed subcontractors, and named personnel be considered collectively?

Answer: Yes.

7. For the requirement to have served at least 3,000 discrete entities, how does the State define and measure a discrete entity?

Answer: In this instance, a discrete entity means an individual building.

8. For the ESPM and API integration experience requirement, would a functional integration demonstration using ESPM APIs, supported by documented production experience with comparable third-party APIs, meet the minimum qualification, or is prior production delivery specifically involving ESPM required ?

Answer: Yes, a functional integration demonstration using ESPM APIs, supported by documented production experience with comparable third-party APIs, will be considered for meeting minimum qualifications.

9. Will the State accept documented experience with complex property/entity reconciliation, record deduplication, and unique identifier management plus a representative assessor-data demonstration, or does the minimum qualification require prior production experience specifically with municipal/county assessor datasets, campus properties, and state-specific Building IDs ?

Answer: Minimum qualifications must be met as presented in the RFP for an Offeror to be eligible. However, Section 2.1.4 under the RFP minimum experience and qualifications has been modified to read, “Demonstrated direct experience working with large complex building datasets, deduplicating complex multi-buildings/campus property records, and establishing unique Buildings IDs.”

10. Please confirm which decisions remain the responsibility of the CEO Program Manager versus the contractor. In particular, will the State retain authority over broader energy-efficiency program management, allocation/disbursement of funds, final regulatory enforcement actions, exemptions, and alternative compliance determinations, while the contractor supports data, workflows, communication, and Help Center operations?

Answer: Yes. The State will make the final determination regarding enforcement actions, program exemptions, adjusted targets and timelines, etc. The contractor will function in a data management, communication, and Help Center management capacity and may provide recommendations to the State regarding other areas, but the ultimate decision will be the State’s jurisdiction.

11. Section 3.6.7 describes reimbursement for Tasks 1–5 on a time-and-materials basis, whereas Section 4.7 requests an all-inclusive firm-fixed price. Please clarify whether Tasks 1–5 are paid for actual approved effort up to the $600,000 ceiling, by fixed-price deliverable milestones, or under another arrangement, and what documentation supports monthly invoicing?

Answer: In this instance fixed price indicates that this rate is for the entire engagement and does not change. We require a breakdown of costs in order to better determine cost allocation and how reasonable the pricing is. Invoicing and payments are made according to the contracted terms and conditions.

12. Please provide the current benchmarking compliance baseline and the rules and timing for measuring the 60% and 80% milestones.

Answer: Current compliance status is approximately 50% of covered buildings. Compliance requires a covered building to have submitted complete and accurate benchmarking data, have paid all required fees, and submitted the annual BPC Progress Survey by the November 1 annual reporting deadline. Timing for measuring compliance will be determined in the final contract.

13. Are both $75,000 payments independently available in each renewal year, and how will compliance outcomes affected by building-owner action, policy changes, or State dependencies be treated?

Answer: Both payments are available independently in each renewal year. Compliance outcomes affected by actions outside of the Offeror’s control will not affect the availability or thresholds for incentive payments.

14. Does the $600,000 annual Tasks 1–5 budget include all cloud hosting, third-party software licensing, ESPM-related services, security/accessibility testing, Help Center telephony and ticketing, and data migration costs, or will any of those be provided or reimbursed separately by the State?

Answer: The $600,000 budget is intended to cover time and materials for all aspects of the scope of work indicated as work to be completed by the Offeror in the RFP on an annual basis.

15. May Offerors propose use of existing State licenses or shared infrastructure?

Answer: If the State maintains licenses or infrastructure that the Offeror is aware of and would like to utilize, they may propose to do so. The State will evaluate such a proposal and determine if usage of the proposed licenses or infrastructure is viable and appropriate.

16. Is there an incumbent contractor currently operating the BPC platform and/or Help Center? If so, will the State provide a structured transition period, access to technical and process documentation, exportable historical data, existing configurations, and the incumbent’s support for knowledge transfer?

Answer: Yes, if required the State will provide a structured transition period to ensure historical benchmarking data and other pertinent information are properly transferred to new platforms.

17. Does the State have mandated or preferred cloud platforms, database engines, application frameworks, integration technologies, identity providers, source-code repositories, or ticketing platforms?

Answer: The State is agnostic to technology stacks for vendor-hosted solutions, which is the preferred hosting model for this effort. Should a vendor propose developing a State-hosted vendor-managed solution, then the vendor would need to work with State mandated and preferred technologies for any work within State environments. Should a State-hosted vendor-managed proposal be selected, the Colorado Office of Information Technology (OIT) will partner with the vendor to provide the current list and guidelines for mandated and preferred technologies.

18. Are vendors free to propose a secure, standards-based alternative architecture, subject to CEO/OIT approval?

Answer: Yes.

19. Can the State provide an inventory of current data sources, historical record volumes, interfaces, data quality issues, and formats for migration?

Answer: Yes, once a vendor is selected the State can and will share all data and other information needed to accomplish all listed tasks and milestones.

20. Will system/data access and required State approvals be available immediately after contract execution, and can implementation milestones be adjusted if dependencies or access are delayed?

Answer: Yes.

21. Can the State share historical monthly ticket volumes and category/channel breakdowns, especially seasonal peaks near June 1, along with current service levels and resolution rates?

Answer: Yes, once a vendor is selected the State can and will share all data and other information needed to accomplish all listed tasks and milestones. The Offeror should propose the volume of work that could be completed within the proposed budget for that Offeror, and the state will evaluate each proposal accordingly.

22. Which inquiries must be handled by energy/sustainability specialists, and what formal escalation and State-approved guidance will be available for complex regulatory matters?

Answer: Upon contract execution, the exact breakdown of which questions and processes should be addressed by the vendor and which should be escalated to State employees will be provided.

23. Are project management, software engineering, data operations, and Help Center activities permitted to be performed remotely by personnel located outside Colorado, including Connecticut, provided the applicable disclosure and security requirements are met?

Answer: Yes.

24. Are any functions, key staff, meetings, or Help Center roles required to be physically located in Colorado or performed onsite?

Answer: No.

25. The model IT contract requires advance State/OIT approval for services or State-system access performed outside the United States. Would the State consider a disclosed offshore development or quality-assurance team working only with synthetic/non-State data and without accessing State systems or records?

Answer: Yes, the State would consider a disclosed offshore development or quality-assurance team working only with synthetic/non-State data and without accessing State systems or records, as long as the county is not among the countries the Department of State has placed on the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) list.

26. Please clarify the approval process, timing, permissible activities, and any categorical restrictions for this engagement.

Answer: CEO does not understand the nature of this question and therefore cannot provide a response.

27. Does the State permit enterprise-grade AI coding assistants and development tools for code generation, refactoring, testing, documentation, and internal productivity, with human verification and no confidential State data entered into public AI systems?

Answer: For vendor-hosted solutions, the State permits enterprise-grade AI coding assistants and development tools for code generation, refactoring, testing, documentation, and internal productivity, with human verification and no confidential State data entered into public AI systems. If a vendor proposes a State-hosted vendor-managed solution, any development tools within a State environment will be subject to OIT’s mandated or preferred technologies, security standards, and governance requirements.

28. Please distinguish any approval/disclosure requirements for development-time AI assistance from those for AI or ML features deployed in the production BPC solution?

Answer: Please refer to Appendix E: AI Disclosure and Use Requirements.

29. Beyond Appendix E’s written disclosure, human review, enterprise data protection, and prohibition on training models with State data absent approval, are there specific State/OIT approved or prohibited AI vendors, deployment models, code/data retention settings, audit requirements, or approval steps that Offerors should account for in the technical solution and cost proposal?

Answer: For vendor-hosted solutions, there are no prohibited AI vendors, deployment models, code/data retention settings, audit requirements, or approval steps that Offerors should account for in the technical solution and cost proposal. Should an Offeror propose a State-hosted vendor-managed solution, then the Offeror will be subject to OIT’s mandated or preferred technologies, security standards, and governance requirements.

30. Given the technical scope, transition dependencies, and required staffing and pricing detail, would the State consider extending the November 13, 2026 proposal submission deadline? If an extension is anticipated, when would the revised schedule be announced?

Answer: Due to the number of questions received, the State has determined that it will extend the proposal submission deadline to 5:00 PM Mountain Time on November 27, 2026.

31. The RFP references Appendix F, Contract Federal Provisions Exhibit, but the public attachment list has the main RFP and Appendices A-E. Please provide the applicable Appendix F and confirm which federal/SEP requirements apply.

Answer: That was an oversight. Appendix F: Contract Federal Provisions has been uploaded onto the VSS platform and can also be found on Rocky Mountain BidNet.

32. The SOW provides up to $600,000 T&M plus two $75,000 compliance milestones, while Section 4.7 requests firm rates and a fixed price for the entire engagement. Should the COST FILE show a T&M not-to-exceed budget by task plus separate contingent milestones? How will the compliance denominator, measurement dates and corrections be defined?

Answer: Offerors should provide a fixed-firm not-to-exceed budget for the $600,000 and provide additional milestone-based budget for each of the $75,000 incentive payments that would be based on compliance rates.

33. Task 5 staffing refers to response within 48 hours and the service level refers to 48 business hours during 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Mountain coverage. Which clock and weekend/holiday treatment control? Please also confirm whether Task 1 coordination is weekly or biweekly?

Answer: The expectation is that Help Center inquiries are either responded to or escalated to State employees for review within 48 hours of working time. No one is expected to work during weekends or holidays, the 48 hour timeframe applies only to regular Mountain Time business hours. For Task 1, the expectation is that coordination meetings will be weekly at first and can then move to a biweekly or other less frequent schedule once the initial set up and coordination between vendors and the State is complete.

34. What existing software licenses, source/export rights, schema/API documentation, data/attachments, open cases and transition assistance will the State provide, and when?

Answer: OIT will provide the software or methods for secure delivery of any necessary data between the Offeror and the CEO. Timeline and requirements for any required ongoing data transfer between the Offeror and CEO will be defined during project meetings.

35. Is retention/configuration of an existing licensed platform acceptable, and which incumbent transition costs must be included?

Answer: Yes, retention of an existing licensed platform is acceptable. The Offeror must account for historical data ingestion as part of their proposal. Data formatting and delivery requirements will be defined during project meetings.

36. Please identify available ESPM sharing, utility and AccessGov interfaces without providing sensitive credentials.

Answer: CEO requires the database platform provided under the scope of work to be capable of integrating with ESPM, utility data, and AccessGov.

37. The RFP background states June 1 reporting, while signed HB25-1269 moves annual benchmarking to November 1 beginning in 2026. Which current calendar and program rules should the proposal use, including peak support and compliance-milestone measurement?

Answer: This was an error. The annual reporting period will remain July 1 - November 1. Those are the dates that should inform the proposal, including peak support and compliance-milestone measurement.

38. Main RFP/Appendix A requires insurance evidence before execution, while Appendix B permits certificates within seven business days after Effective Date. Which timing controls, and how should the number of records be counted for Appendix B's cyber-insurance tiers?

Answer: The Colorado Energy Office requires proof of insurance coverage prior to the Contract Effective Date.

39. Platform scope: Is the awarded respondent expected to provide and host the database/platform (continuing or replacing the BEAM platform), or to administer an existing State-owned system? Who owns the current code and data, and what transition support will the current contractor provide?

Answer: The awarded respondent must provide and host the platform. The current vendor owns the code and the State owns the data. If necessary, the current vendor shall participate in a structured transition with the State and the new vendor(s) to ensure historical benchmarking data and other pertinent information are properly transferred to new platforms.

40. Budget and term: Is there an estimated budget or not-to-exceed amount for this contract? What are the initial terms and the renewal options?

Answer: Please see Sections 3.6.7, 4.7., and 1.7 of the RFP for this information .

41. Integrations and volumes: Which integrations are required (for example, ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager web services, annual payment processing, and the Help Center ticketing system)? Approximately how many covered buildings, records, and users does the system support?

Answer: Please see response to Question 37 regarding system integrations with the database platform. The system supports approximately 10,500 covered buildings and building records, with a similar number of individual users.

42. Qualifications and teaming: What are the minimum qualifications and reference requirements?

Answer: Please see Section 2 of the RFP for minimum and highly desired experience and qualifications.

43. Are subcontracting and teaming arrangements permitted, and if so, can the prime rely on a subcontractor's experience and references?

Answer: The RFP does not identify any restrictions on partnering or subcontracting. However, the prime contractor is responsible for ensuring that any partners and subcontractors follow all the same terms and conditions as the prime contractor.

44. Are there any small, minority-owned, or disadvantaged business goals or preferences for this solicitation?

Answer: There are no preferences for small, minority owned, or disadvantaged companies.

45. AI use (Appendix E): Would enterprise AI services running in the contractor's own secured cloud account, with the State's prior written approval and no use of State data for model training, satisfy Appendix E's "enterprise-level data protections" requirement? Which hosting, security, and data-residency standards apply to State data under this contract?

Answer: Yes, enterprise AI services running in the contractor's own secured cloud account, with the State's prior written approval and no use of State data for model training, would satisfy Appendix E's "enterprise-level data protections" requirement. See Colorado’s Information Security Policy below for use of State data & information technology resources:

https://servicehub.colorado.gov/ts?id=tech_standard&sysparm_article=KB0014333

46. Schedule and submission: Is a pre-proposal conference planned?

Answer: No pre-prosposal conference is planned. If the State determines that interviews or demonstrations are needed in their decision to award, those Offerors who are deemed eligible for potential award will be notified and scheduled.

47. Which platform holds the benchmarking data today (for example, ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager plus a state database), and will the contractor administer that existing system or may it propose its own?

Answer: The existing platform hosts data submitted via ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager. The contractor must propose their own platform.

48. About how many covered buildings and annual submissions should the contractor plan for, and how much of the work is help-desk support to building owners versus data administration?

Answer: There are approximately 10,500 covered buildings. The Offeror should plan for annual submissions for all of these buildings. The breakdown of Help Center support vs data administration is outlined in the RFP itself - both are core aspects any vendor or vendor team should plan to handle.

49. May the work be performed remotely from out of state?

Answer: Yes.

50. May the mandatory three-year building-performance/utility-program experience, three-year Help Center experience, and analogous-reference requirements be satisfied collectively through the prime contractor, named subcontractors, and proposed key personnel, or must the prime contractor independently satisfy each requirement?

Answer: The three-year requirement can be satisfied by the prime contractor, named subcontractors, and proposed key personnel, not just the prime contractor.

51. Please describe the current BPC platform and incumbent environment, including hosting architecture, data model, historical record and attachment volumes, existing integrations, available API documentation, and the data-export and transition assistance that will be provided to the awarded contractor.

Answer: This information is not necessary for Offerors to respond to the RFP. We believe the SOW clearly lays out what is needed and should be sufficient for a response.

52. Please provide historical Help Center demand by channel and month, peak-period concurrency, average handling time, common request categories, language or accommodation requirements, and whether the awarded contractor must replace or may continue using any existing telephony, email, knowledge-base, or ticketing systems.

Answer: See responses to Questions 16 and 22.

53. Please reconcile the requirement for a firm-fixed cost proposal with the statement that up to $600,000 for Tasks 1–5 will be time-and-materials.

Answer: There are two areas of this question that need to be addressed: As mentioned in Question #33, Offerors should provide a fixed-firm not-to-exceed budget for the $600,000 and provide additional milestone-based budget for each of the $75,000 incentive payments that would be based on compliance rates. However, the other aspect of this requirement is that we ask for a firm-fixed price for the entire engagement that does not change. We also require a breakdown of costs in order to better determine cost allocation and how reasonable the pricing is.

54. Clarify how recurring SaaS licensing, hosting, implementation, and Help Center labor should be categorized and invoiced.

Answer: The budget for time (ex: Help Center labor) and materials (ex: SaaS licence costs) should be broken down by task.

55. At what stage must the contractor provide SOC 2 Type II or equivalent evidence and accessibility conformance evidence, and what specific alternative security attestations and VPAT or third-party accessibility reports will be accepted for pass/fail compliance?

Answer: To ensure finalized content meets state compliance standards, it is recommended that you perform accessibility testing throughout the design and development process. You can work with the contract manager for your project for questions and they can reach out to dedicated accessibility staff with any outstanding questions. An accessibility conformance report should accompany any deliverables that are provided to the state. These reports can vary depending on the product. For documents, an accessibility report generated from Word or Acrobat Pro are acceptable. For more robust products like applications, webpages, and media, a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template or VPAT (ITIC.org) can be used to document conformance. Third-party evaluations will only be required if conformance is in question.

56. Can you provide any information on CEO communications plans and priorities that might affect Help Desk volume outside of the typical reporting period?

Answer: There are no major programmatic changes anticipated at this time that would affect Help Desk volume outside of the typical reporting period.

57. The RFP provides performance incentives of $75,000 upon achievement of 60% benchmarking compliance and an additional $75,000 upon achievement of 80% compliance. When will compliance be measured for purposes of determining achievement of each milestone? When would the associated incentive payments be paid out? If compliance rates rise after the date measured (later in the year or even in the next cycle), would the Offeror still receive the payments?

Answer: See response to Question 13.

58. Please confirm whether all software licensing, subscription, hosting, and other technology costs required to perform tasks must be included within the $600,000 base amount, or whether any State-provided licenses, systems, or separately funded technology resources will be available to the awarded contractor (e.g., fee payment portal).

Answer: See response to Question 15.

59. The RFP provides for up to four one-year renewal options and states that the maximum available budget for each option year is $750,000. Please clarify whether Offerors should propose pricing for option years as part of this response.

Answer: CEO asks Offeror to propose pricing for option years as part of their response. Pricing for the initial term of the Contract is firm. For each renewal option, pricing may be adjusted depending on CEO needs, however it is anticipated that the budget will not exceed $750,000 per each one-year renewal period. Any rate increases for renewal terms should be reflected in the Offeror’s response.

60. The RFP provides for up to four one-year renewal options. Please clarify whether rates may be adjusted in future option years.

Answer: See response to Question 60.

61. Subtask 1.2 - is titled "Bi-weekly Meetings" while the description states that there will be weekly meetings. Should the vendor build a budget around weekly or bi-weekly meetings?

Answer: The expectation is that coordination meetings will be weekly at first and can then move to a biweekly or other less frequent schedule at CEO’s discretion based on volume. The CEO thinks it is reasonable to assume that the revised meeting schedule would be bi-weekly.