DOER RFQ-ENE-2026-020 Clean Peak Energy Standard Administrator Question and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DOER RFQ-ENE-2026-020 Clean Peak Energy Standard Administration Support Request for Quotes (PRF74)
- Solicitation number
- BD-26-1041-ENE01-ENE01-122602
- Issued by
- Suffolk County, Massachusetts
About this file
This is a Question and Answer document for RFQ-ENE-2026-020, issued by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) in support of the Clean Peak Energy Standard (CPS) Program administration. The RFQ seeks a contractor to review and process Clean Peak Resource applications, manage applicant communications, and maintain program data and records. The CPS program has received 470 applications over the 12-month period from Q4 2024 through Q3 2025, with approximately 33% requiring follow-up contact for additional information or corrections and 152 applications rejected during this timeframe. The current program administrator received 51 calls, 369 emails, and sent approximately 501 emails during the past 12 months. The contract requires support during normal business hours Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST, with applications to be reviewed within a 30-day benchmark window. The anticipated contract duration is 36 months with two potential 12-month renewal options, and the selected contractor will receive a 30-day training window prior to contract commencement. The proposal submission deadline is December 1, 2025, at 4:00 PM EST.
The maximum budget allocation for this procurement is $400,000 over the three-year contract term, with hourly rates constrained by the statewide PRF74 contract maximum billing rates and overhead functions limited to seven percent of the total budget. The current program administrator has expended $367,451 as of November 11, 2025, equating to approximately $133,000 annually. This is a rate-based contract structure where staffing decisions and resource allocation are at the contractor's discretion; however, the contractor must demonstrate the ability to complete all application reviews within the 30-day processing requirement and manage anticipated communication volumes. The procurement is targeted toward small businesses participating in the Commonwealth's Small Business Purchasing Program (SBPP), though qualified non-SBPP vendors may submit proposals if adequate SBPP capacity is unavailable. The RFQ has been clarified that PRF74 vendor certification is required, previous documentation requirements have been waived as this is conducted under PRF74, and MassCEC will serve as the sole metering and data verification provider utilizing the Production Tracking System.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFQ-ENE-2026-020 Q&A
| User Created | Question Subject | Question | Answer | |
| 1 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | How many applications has the CPS program received in the past 12 months. | The CPS program has received 470 applications from Q4 2024 through Q3 2025 | |
| 2 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | Any anticipated change to this volume over the contract term. | The Department is unable to predict application volume and is not aware of any particular circumstances that will significantly impact application volume. | |
| 3 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | What percentage of applications in the past 12 months required the administrator to reach back out to the applicant to obtain additional information or corrections? | Approximately 33% | |
| 4 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | How many applications that were received in the last 12 months were not approved? | 152 applications were submitted and not approved from November 20th 2024 though November 20th 2025 | |
| 5 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | How many calls were received each month for the past 12 months in this program? | The CPSPA received 51 calls from Q4 2024 though Q3 2025 | |
| 6 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | How many emails were received each month for the past 12 months in this program? | The PA received 369 emails from Q4 2024 through Q3 2025 | |
| 7 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | How many emails were sent each month for the past 12 months in this program? | The CPSPA sent approximately 501 emails from November 20th 2024 through November 20th 2025 | |
| 8 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | How many chat sessions were conducted each month for the past 12 months in this program? | The department meets weekly with the CPSPA, the CPSPA also attends bi-weekly meetings with MassCEC along with DOER. The PA has been asked to join various additional calls/meetings at DOER's discretion. | |
| 9 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | Task 2 states �??Minimum service level requirements shall include, but not be limited to hours of operation, maximum wait times, chat functionality, email notifications of application receipt and processing, and customer satisfaction measurement and minimum attainment standards.�?? a. Can you detail what these specific requirements will be, i.e. what will the required of operations be, what will maximum wait times be�?�.? b. Can you list what these requirements are for the current program, i.e. what are current call center hours. | The CPSPA will be required to attend meetings at DOER's discretion. Applications need to be reviewed within a 30 day window of submission. The CPSPA is required to support the program during normal working hours Monday - Friday EST. 9:00am - 5:00pm. | |
| 10 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | The functionality of the production tracking system software that the CPSPA staff will be using is very closely tied to the level of effort this contract will require. Is there a manual or demo of what this portal looks like from the perspective of the SPSPA and its capabilities that could be provided to bidders, under an NDA if necessary? | The CPSPA works closely with the Production Tracking System (PTS) via their registration portal. The CPSPA will receive access to the PTS portal for application review, and will meeting at least on a biweekly basis to discuss any questions or concerns. The CPSPA will also be responsible for communicating directly with the PTS regarding questions about portal operations. | |
| 11 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | Section VII of the RFP seems to imply that this will be a time and material contract. a. Is that correct? b. Task 2 appears to call for a call center. This would require at a minimum 1 employee be tasked to this program for all the hours when the call center is expected to be open, even if no calls are received. Is this correct? c. Does the budget of $400,000, or $133,000 per year, anticipate paying for both this call center staff member for approximately 2,200 hours per year and the staff member(s) performing application review, project lead, administrative staff, overhead�?�? | How the CPSPA chooses to staff the administrative needs of the contract is up to the CPSPA's discretion. | |
| 12 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | Section V appears to describe a process where DOER staff are used to benchmark a performance metric for how long an average application review should take. It then goes on to describe what appears to be resultant performance metrics the CPSPA will be held to based on this, which appears to mean DOER would only pay for at most X hours per application where X is the performance metric described above. Is that correct? a. If so, would this be applied to the average processing time or the processing time for any given application? b. If the average, what would the period over which that average would be computed? c. If this is not correct, what contractual implications would exceeding the performance metric trigger? | The CPSPA is expected to review applications within the 30 day benchmark. When selected, the CPSPA will receive a 30 day training window prior to the contract start date. It is up to the CPSPA to determine how they would like to use contract funding in order to successfully execute the scope of work outlined by DOER. | |
| 13 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | Section V appears to describe a process where DOER staff are used to benchmark a performance metric for how long an average application review should take. It then goes on to describe what appears to be resultant performance metrics the CPSPA will be held to based on this, which appears to mean DOER would only pay for at most X hours per application where X is the performance metric described above. Is that correct? a. If so, would this be applied to the average processing time or the processing time for any given application? b. If the average, what would the period over which that average would be computed? c. If this is not correct, what contractual implications would exceeding the performance metric trigger? | duplicate question | |
| 14 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | Price is one of the evaluation factors. It�??s not clear how price will be evaluated. No proposer can realistically propose the amount of time they will spend per application or know the number of applications that will be received, therefore the total time and thus total budget will be entirely dependent on their guess for both of these numbers. This seems ripe for companies that underestimate either or both of these factors, either naively or on purpose, to come in with a much lower pricing than a company that more accurately estimated these numbers and thus unfairly receive a higher pricing score. The DOER may believe that the defined maximum will prevent this, and use that number as an evaluation factor. However if this is the case, then the DOER will have to require that all bidders commit to reviewing all applications that are received for at least 3 and potentially 5 years without having any idea how many applications that entails or how long each takes to review. This is a massive risk that no company will take if it turns out that either number is higher than predicted. Any company that claims to do so will almost certainly cite a contract modification sometime after winning the contract so any price protection DOER believes it has would be illusory. | N/A | |
| 15 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | As a result of all these factors, it seems the only fair way to evaluate price would be for DOER to require the defined maximum pricing to be based on a published number of applications each year and a published amount of time per application that every bidder uses and applies to their hourly rates and overhead. This seems to be the only way to allow an apples to apples comparison between bidders and not punish honest and competent bidders who work from more realistic estimates. a. Would DOER entertain publishing a number for application volume and review time that all bidders are required to use in their bid solely for bid evaluation in order to ensure the price evaluation is both fair and realistic? b. If not, can DOER explain how the pricing evaluation will prevent companies with the lowest estimated number of applications and application review time from gaming the evaluation? | DOER will evaluate proposals based on bidder's ability to meet the scope of work within the alloted budget. | |
| 16 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | There is a note on the bottom of page 3 that states: This procurement is not limited to business participating in the SBPP. Proposals will be expected from qualified PRF62 vendors. The proposal mentions PRF74 several times but not PRF62. Can you clarify if the requirement is for PRF74, PRF62, or both? | This is a typo and can be ignored. | |
| 17 | Kevin Quilliam/InClime | What is the budget under which the incumbent operated in the past year? | As of 11/11/2025 the current CPSPA has cumulative spend of $367,451 | |
| 18 | Jing Hoffmann/THE CADMUS GROUP LLC | Task 1, MassCEC's role | Under Task 1, �??Demand Response Resources�?? on page 7 of the RFQ, did the RFQ intend to say that MassCEC is the sole metering and data verification provider? | Yes, the correct statement should read "The MassCEC will be the sole metering and data verification provider, utilizing the PTS to support the Clean Peak Standard." |
| 19 | Jing Hoffmann/THE CADMUS GROUP LLC | Forms/Attachments | We do not see any required forms/attachments in COMMBuys, but the last time this RFQ was posted in 2022, there were required forms/attachments. Does the RFQ require any forms or other attachments to be included with our response? | The previous CPSPA solicitaion was an open solicitation and required additional documentation from bidders. As this soliciation is under PRF74, additional documentation is not required. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .