The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
UNCLASSIFIED // FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Alternative Financing for Energy Resilience Projects and the Establishment of a Defense Resilience Bank for National Security Solicitation # HQ0034-17-Q-0023
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 & 3.104
TECHNICAL
| Question # |
| Question / Comment |
| Government Response |
| T.1. |
| The RFQ references in the scope and purpose "alternative financing" – can you please explain what you mean by this? In general, alternative financing usually excludes loans / grants and instead focuses on different options, e.g., crowdsourced peer-to-peer lending, etc. |
a. What is the definition of alternative financing you are using?
b. Did you mean to exclude traditional lending via loans from banks?
c. Was this meant to identify opportunities like Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)?
The expectation is that the Contractor would consider all possible execution paths and existing alternative financing authorities which DoD can consider for energy resilience project development outside of federal appropriations. These authorities can include, but, are not limited to, utility service contracts, power purchase agreements, and enhanced use leases. For this study, alternative financing means those projects that make use of or leverage non-federal (third-party) funds.
| T.2. |
| In the structure you are envisaging, who is the "borrower"? e.g., a vendor who would execute on the project (e.g., a solar company?) |
| This is a primary question which will need to be considered by the Contractor as part of the study. It is stated under Performance Objective 5.5.g., “What is the optimal market structure for a DERB?” As part of the performance objectives, the Contractor’s proposal will be evaluated for their capability to be able to answer this question and perform the work as part of the study. While an example market structure is included in 2.0 Scope, the Contractor will be assessed on their capability to provide DoD guidance on this question as part of the study. |
| T.3. |
| When you reference reducing the costs and risks of lending in the Scope, do you include opportunities like credit guarantees from the DoD? Or only structural elements? |
| There is no preconceived notion of a “right” solution, and it will the responsibility of the Contractor to identify areas (such as credit guarantees) that would reduce costs of lending. The study is being commissioned so that DoD can better understand the opportunities to reduce costs and risks, and those that exist in the marketplace. A primary objective of the study is to review the effective use of alternative financing, deal structures, and leveraged funds to accomplish DoD requirements. |
| T.4. |
| Are the risk ratings you reference solely financing? |
As stated in Performance Objective 5.5, the risk rating tool should consider both financial and DoD requirements. The Contractor will be responsible for reviewing DoD requirements to better understand their implications on project risk ratings, and whether they are important considerations in making financial determinations by lenders (e.g., project schedules, levels of system availability and/or reliability needed, etc.).
| T.5. |
| In the case of the DERB, you say that "recommendations that result from this study will be used to inform the vision for a DERB." To what extent is design / format of the DERB to be identified in this phase? Is it only "documenting and recording the appropriate policies or processes" to overcome obstacles to its implementation? |
| As a study, this is documenting and recording the findings in a report, and then “informing” by providing a final brief to the DoD. Please see Performance Objective 5.6 for deliverables. The tool is also part of the deliverables. |
| T.6. |
| On page 15, you reference that the Contractor's response shall also demonstrate "expertise and execution in using project risk rating tools…to influence lending with major banks and financial institutions." Will you also consider expertise in alternative energy strategy and usage, e.g., microgrids, solar, CHP, and others? Or only energy related financing? |
| Technical expertise for energy resilience systems will also be considered as part of Performance Objective 5.1. Specifically, an understanding of energy resilience systems is important to better understand life cycle costs and technical metrics associated with these systems (see Performance Objectives 5.1.a and 5.1.b). |
The Contractor should describe all relative expertise to perform the study, which includes processes, procedures, tools, and methods to evaluate capabilities to perform the objectives within the SOO.
| T.7. |
| Please confirm if we are able to propose Non-US Citizens who will execute work on this study. If there are any countries of citizenship that are preferred or are not acceptable please let us know this as well. |
| Operating Constraints are described in Section 6.0 of the SOO, which states, “The contractor should be prepared to protect for official use only or technical information described in the following documents: DoD Directive 5205.02E, DoD Manual 5205.02M, and DoDI 5230.24.” All Contractor staff proposed shall be required to comply with the background check requirements of FAR 52.204-9, Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel as incorporated by reference on page 7 of the RFQ. |
| T.8. |
| Has the type of services being solicited in the Request for Quotation (“RFQ”) been provided before? If so, by whom? |
| No, this is a new requirement. |
| T.9. |
| Page 3 of the RFQ under Section 1.0 Purpose, states that the “research study will use the results of the MIT-LL energy resilience framework.” Please clarify if the MIT-LL energy resilience framework has been completed. We request that the framework be provided to offerors so that we adequately respond to the RFQ requirements. |
| The framework was completed and made publically available on October 4, 2016. It can be found at: https://ll.mit.edu/mission/engineering/Publications/TR-1216.pdf. |
| T.10. |
| The RFQ, page 3, indicates that several projects have been identified as cost effective, could the list of projects be shared, especially given that the regulatory environment in each state is different? Would the contractor have access to those bases where the projects are located? |
| Contractors are encouraged to review the following public website which provides details on types of projects and the MIT-LL tool: http://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/IE/FEP_Energy_Resilience.html. |
| T.11. |
| Question 5.2 indicates there are current DOD tools and methods designed for analyzing the financials of energy projects. Can these be shared? |
| Specific tools and methods will be more appropriately shared to conduct the work as part of the study with the selected service provider. |
| T.12. |
| Question 5.4.e refers to existing DOD financial tools. Could these be shared? |
| Specific tools and methods will be more appropriately shared to conduct the work as part of the study with the selected service provider. |
| T.13. |
| Could DOD provide as annexes any documents produce by MIT-LL that are not available online? |
| Specific details on the MIT-LL work will be more appropriately shared to conduct the work as part of the study with the selected service provider. |
| T.14. |
| Besides the work done by MIT-LL and on the website referenced in 4.0, are there other studies produced by DOD or DOD contractors that provide critical insights that would inform offerors' responses? |
| Contractors are also encouraged to review the DoD’s Annual Energy Management and Resilience (AEMR) reports found at the following: http://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/IE/FEP_Energy_Reports.html. These reports provide an overview of all installation energy efforts, along with a review of energy resilience initiatives. The selected service provider will also have the ability to review internal DoD studies and assessments. |
| T.15. |
| Given the requirement to take outputs from the MIT-LL tool and provide lending institutions with the necessary information, data, and metrics, necessary for them to develop a risk rating tool, please confirm that this data is unclassified and uncontrolled. |
The selected service provider is not responsible for providing information to outside lending institutions on the Government’s behalf.
To clarify, it is a requirement of the study for the selected service provider to build, modify, and deliver a risk rating tool (See Performance Objective 5.5).
The DoD is prepared to share the necessary information with the selected service provider to help meet this requirement. No classified information will be shared. The handling of the for official use only information needs to comply with the operating constraints found in Section 6.0 of the Statement of Objectives.
| T.16. |
| With regard to performance objective 5.5, what are the technical requirements for this tool? For example, is it a stand-alone application or enterprise, on-premises or in a cloud (commercial or government)? Please provide any additional technical specifications, requirements, design parameters and details, etc. to help us better understand the existing operating environment, domains, networks, and requirements for its design. |
| A sophisticated information technology (IT) solution deliverable is not an objective of the study. Contractors should focus on stand-alone, cost-effective applications (such as Excel) that can be used by a wide user base, and can be easily adopted and used on existing systems. For purposes of this study, the Contractor should simply consider how the stand-alone application could be used cost-effectively as an add-in or plug-in functionality for more widely available applications. |
PRICE
| Question # |
| Question / Comment |
| Government Response |
| P.1. |
| Page 15, General Instructions- Please clarify if Offerors’ supporting price narrative can be provided in MS Word with the price estimate and formulas in Excel format. |
| Yes. |
The solicitation has been revised accordingly.
| P.2. |
| Page 15, General Instructions- Please confirm Volume II, Price is not subject to any page count limitation. |
| Yes, there are no page restrictions on Volume II – Price. However, any information added that was not requested to be included in this volume (i.e. information not related to contractor pricing) will not be evaluated. |
| P.3. |
| Reference Volume II Price - If CLIN 0002 is to be a COST CLIN, should the references to the T&M clauses throughout the solicitation, including 52.212-4 be removed? |
| CLIN 0002 is a T&M line item. Since this is a commercial contract a T&M type CLIN is the type authorized for Travel. |
| P.4. |
| Reference SOO - What kinds of entities does OSD anticipate being borrowers from the DERB? Project developers? Financiers? Military Departments? Other Federal entities? |
| This is a primary question which will need to be considered by the Contractor as part of the study. It is stated under Performance Objective 5.5.g., “What is the optimal market structure for a DERB?” As part of the performance objectives, the Contractor’s proposal will be evaluated for their capability to be able to answer this question and perform the work as part of the study. While an example market structure is included in 2.0 Scope, the Contractor will be assessed on their capability to provide DoD guidance on this question as part of the study. |
| P.5. |
| Reference SOO - What does OSD anticipate the typical project size (measured in $millions) to be for projects financed through the DERB? |
| Since the DERB is in concept only at this time, a typical project size has not been determined. Energy resilience projects today vary in size due to spanning a variety of technologies, and that they are influenced by regional / local constraints. It is unknown what the typical project size would be in a future market structure. This is a question which the study will look to address. |
Approaches considered by the Contractor should be flexible to identify successful application of risk/reward at many project sizes, and be flexible to accept a wide range of inputs, with recommendations for optimization of inputs (project size) for maximizing project success.
| P.6. |
| Reference General Instructions- The Instructions state "The Contractor shall provide the number of energy infrastructure projects executed, the bank/financial lending which was influenced to provide the capital investment, and the description/dollar amount of the executed projects attributable to the firm’s risk rating tool(s) and processes." What kinds of submitted information would OSD find credible to demonstrate how the proponent influenced lending and can claim that executed projects were attributable to the proponent's risk rating tool? |
| As stated on page 15, Volume I – Technical, the Contractor shall “submit a response” in its proposal demonstrating expertise and execution in using project risk rating tool(s) and processes inclusive of inputs and outputs, to influence lending with major banks and financial institutions. The Contractor is responsible for providing information within its proposal to address this requirement. |
| P.7. |
| Could a budget range for the work be provided? |
| Up to $300k. |
CONTRACTUAL
| Question # |
| Question / Comment |
| Government Response |
| C.1. |
| Can Offerors propose their GSA Schedule in response to the RFQ? |
This solicitation is requesting open market quotes.
| C.2. |
| RFQ Page 7 “Clauses Incorporated by Reference”: Given the anticipated contract is FFP, please clarify why FAR 52.249-6 Alt IV, Termination (Cost Reimbursement) and FAR 52.246-6 Inspection--Time-And-Material And Labor-Hour, FAR 52.232-7, PAYMENTS UNDER TIME AND MATERIALS AND LABOR HOUR CONTRACTS are incorporated in the RFQ? |
| Reference the response to question P.3. above, these clauses are applicable. |
| C.3. |
| RFQ Page 10 “Instructions To Offerors- Commercial Items”: Please clarify if the Representation and Certification is part of Volume III – Contract Administration |
| Yes, as per pg. 16, paragraph 3, “Volume III – Contract Administration. The Contractor shall submit a signed SF 1449, and the FAR and DFARS provisions and clauses which require the Contractor’s response, as a MS Word or PDF document.” |
| C.4. |
| Page 14, General Instructions- Is there a format for the contractor to follow in submitting the firm qualifications information requested under Section 2, Technical Factor? |
| The Contractor should keep the format consistent as described on page 15, paragraph 3, “The Technical Volume shall be submitted as a Microsoft (MS) Word or PDF document. The 8.5” x 11” page format shall have a 1-inch margin using no smaller than a 10-point Times New Roman font for all text, with the exception of text in tables or figures, which shall be no smaller than an 8-point Times New Roman font.” |
| C.5. |
| Page 14, General Instructions, Volume 1- “The Contractor shall provide the number of energy infrastructure projects executed, the bank/financial lending which was influenced to provide the capital investment, and the description/dollar amount of the executed projects attributable to the firm’s risk rating tool(s) and processes” This indicates Contractor’s past performance be included in the Technical Volume. Please confirm if that is a correct assumption. |
The referenced section address experience not past performance. Contractors should not submit past performance evaluations in this response, since they will not be considered as part of their submittal.
| C.6. |
| Page 15, General Instructions- Are resumes included in the 25-page limit for the Technical proposal, or are they excluded from the page count limitation? |
| No, the resumes, which are limited to 3 pages each, are not included in the 25 page limitation for Technical Volume. |
The solicitation has been revised accordingly.
| C.7. |
| Please confirm the cover page and cover letter are excluded from the page count limitation. |
| Yes, the cover page and cover letter are excluded from page count limitations. |
| C.8. |
| Reference Section B - CLIN 0002 is listed as a T&M CLIN. Should this be listed as a Cost CLIN? |
| Reference the response to question P.3. above. |
| C.9. |
| Reference Volume II Price - For the Not to Exceed travel amount provided, are contractors to assume this Not to Exceed amount includes any indirects amounts an Offeror would typically include in their travel estimates, or should offeror’s add their indirects on top of the amount? |
| The not to exceed travel amount provided on page 16, paragraph 2, of $8,000 is a fixed amount. As identified in the RFP, Travel shall only be reimbursed in accordance with FAR Part 31.205-46. |
| C.10. |
| Reference General Instructions- Please confirm what is included in the 25 page limit? |
-Are resumes included in the 25 page limit?
-Is the PWS included in the 25 page limit?
- Is the QASP included in the 25 page limit?
Yes, both the PWS and QASP are included in the 25 page limit. Resumes are not included in the page limit.
The solicitation has been revised accordingly.
| C.11. |
| Page 15 of the RFQ states that “the following items will not be considered when calculating page limits: Cover Page, Table of Contents, Glossary, and OCI mitigation plans (if applicable).” The RFQ also states that “Resumes of proposed personnel are limited to 3 pages each.” Please clarify if resumes count toward the 25 pages Technical Volume page limit. We request that resumes be included as and Annex to the Technical Voume and not included in the 25 page technical volume page limit. |
Reference the response to question C.10. above.
| C.12. |
| What is the expected page length for the QASP? |
| The page length of the QASP is at the discretion of the Contractor. Both the PWS and QASP are limited to 25 pages. |
| C.13. |
| What criteria will the Government use to evaluate resumes submitted under Technical Factor 3? Is there a format that contractors should follow for submitting resumes? |
The criteria outlined states, “The Government will evaluate the extent that the Contractor’s quote provides personnel with extensive knowledge, proficiency, and experience evaluating energy related financing based on the professional & technical qualifications of the proposed personnel.” The format is left up to the discretion of the firm providing the quote.
| C.14. |
| How will the Government factor Evaluation Table 2 and Table 3 into the overall evaluation described in Section 4 of the RFQ? |
The definitions outlined in Evaluation Table 2, and the risk rating descriptions outlined in Evaluation Table 3, will be considered in the final technical rating issued for each Technical Factor in Evaluation Table 1.
UNCLASSIFIED // FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
DOD Washington Headquarters Service