ESBD_471599_1765479504969_Responses to Questions- RFP 240f FINAL.pdf

Official Responses to Questions from Potential Respondents – RFP No. 240f

Request for Proposals for Federal Compliance Monitoring Services for the

State Energy Conservation Office State Energy Program: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

Schools and Hospitals Programs (RFP No. 240f)

Official Responses to Questions from Potential Respondents (December 11, 2025)

1. Please confirm whether all successful respondents are expected to be engaged as subrecipients (2 CFR 200.331(a)), or if SECO would consider procuring Compliance Monitoring services under a contractor/vendor engagement (2 CFR 200.331(b)).

RESPONSE: Successful Respondents under this RFP will be considered contractors to

CPA.

2. Our team is hoping to participate as a subcontractor and join a prime's team to cover a specific scope. Since a plan holders list is currently unavailable, would SECO please consider releasing a plan holders list with email and phone contact info for plan holders so that we and other potential subcontractors can contact primes and attempt to join a team?

RESPONSE: SECO does not have a plan holders list and does not intend to release one for this RFP.

3. The RFP (page 10) states that “For this RFP, this maximum dollar amount is calculated as 10 percent (10%) of the contract award” as the maximum dollar amount that the state will reimburse for indirect costs and fringe benefits costs, including indirect and direct fringe costs, under its financial assistance awards. The U.S. District Court ruled on May 8, 2025 that the Department of Energy Policy Flash, “Adjusting Department of Energy Financial Assistance Policy for State and Local Governments’ Financial Assistance Awards (2025-25)(“Policy Flash”) was invalid and the Court vacated the Policy Flash. Since the Court vacated the Policy Flash, [A] will SECO be removing the 10% indirect cost limitation and, if not, [B] will SECO please clarify if the indirect cost rate requirement applies to procured vendors?

RESPONSE: Please refer to the Addendum posted to ESBD on December 11, 2025.

4. Per section “1.3 Proposal Details” (page 5), the RFP requires the Respondent to commit to a 10% match that will be approved by DOE prior to full contract execution. During Contract negotiations, the Successful Respondent will be required to submit a copy of a Match Letter (See Sample Match Letter, Attachment N in Exhibit A, Sample Contract). DOE must review and approve the Successful Respondent’s proposed match prior to commencement of services.

Since the Respondent is a contractor/ vendor performing services under the contract separate and distinct from those of sub awardees or subrecipients, will SECO consider removing the 10% match requirement?

RESPONSE: See the response to Question #3.

5. Part I: Introduction and Background. Section 1.2 Background. “SECO will issue multiple Requests for Applications (RFAs), accepting applications from eligible public-school districts and rural, taxpayer-supported hospitals.” Approximately how many subrecipients/awardees of the State Energy Program does SECO anticipate?

RESPONSE: SECO anticipates approximately 60 awards to be made during the first contract term period. Additional awards will be made through the optional renewal terms.

6. Can SECO please clarify if they are seeking a contractor or subrecipient to perform these monitoring services? Per 2 CFR Part 200, subrecipients are defined as an entity receiving a subaward from a Pass-through entity to carry out Federal award activities, while a contractor is defined as an entity that receives a contract to perform services, such as monitoring, under the Federal award. As different subrecipients and contractors have different requirements, we want to confirm the relationship for this engagement.

RESPONSE: SECO is seeking a contractor to complete the Federal Compliance Monitoring Services referenced in the RFP.

7. Can you provide additional information / details regarding what SECO anticipates for the match component based on prior experience with match utilized from a third-party?

RESPONSE: SECO requires a 10% minimum match requirement. See Section 1.3 of the

RFP.

8. Has SECO worked with contractors previously who obtained a DOE approved Match Letters, and if so, can you provide additional information regarding this process?

RESPONSE: RESPONSE: See the response to Question #3.

9. Exhibit F: Information Worksheet. Section 2 – Texas Personnel and Subcontractor Qualifications. “The following section must only include information about Firm Personnel and Staff located in the state of Texas.” Can respondents also include qualified personnel with the background and skill set to perform the work but are not physically located in Texas?

RESPONSE: No. Information included in Section 2 of Exhibit F: Information Worksheet must only include information about Firm Personnel and Staff located in the state of Texas.

10. For the 15% of projects selected for monitoring, will SECO be selecting those projects or will the contractor be selecting those projects?

RESPONSE: SECO will select 15% of the awarded projects to receive site visits.

11. Section 3.4, Limitations for Indirect Costs. Can fully burdened hourly rates be submitted in the cost proposal with out details on indirect costs?

12. Is SECO looking for a fixed cost for the initial term and optional review period for monitoring each of the compliance areas, monitoring meetings, plan, and reporting? If so, an estimated number subrecipients and meetings would be helpful to determine an estimated cost.

RESPONSE: Respondents should include pricing for each of the fields listed in Price Schedule 2. SECO anticipates approximately 60 awards to be made under the public school district and public hospitals programs. The Successful Respondent will meet virtually with SECO, monthly. Please refer to Section 2.2 Goals and Scope of Work for additional information regarding meetings.

13. What happens if labor hours exceed the price limit of the contract ($1,800,000)? Are there options to increase this limit should this scenario occur?

RESPONSE: No. The total contract budget, including all budget categories, cannot exceed $1,800,000 throughout the initial contract term and any optional renewal terms.

14. Do the Billable Travel Rates count toward the $1,800,000 contract limit?

RESPONSE: Yes, Billable Travel Rates are included in the $1,800,000 contract limit.

15. Must our firm be located in the State of Texas to be qualified for this bid?

RESPONSE: A firm’s headquarters may be located outside the state of Texas. For the purposes of this RFP, however, a firm must have sufficient staff located within the state of Texas to provide Federal Compliance Monitoring Services to SECO.

16. For the compliance monitoring plan, is there a defined length of time the monitoring plan should extend (6 months, 1 year, 2 years, etc.)?

RESPONSE: The Compliance Monitoring Plan should cover the length of the initial contract term of one year.

17. Regarding BABA compliance, please provide the estimated number of documents or approved projects to review for:

a. Manufacturer letters/product specification letters

b. Waiver eligibility letters

RESPONSE: See the response to Question #5.

18. Is there any expectation for in-person trainings during contract performance?

RESPONSE: No, there is no expectation for in-person trainings during the contract term, though contractors will be expected to attend in-person site visits as part of Davis-Bacon and Build America, Buy America Compliance Monitoring.

19. Regarding the ‘Successful Respondent Match’, does the state expect the respondent to contribute matching monetary funding or only in-kind/volunteer services?

RESPONSE: Successful Respondent Match can consist of monetary funding and/or in-kind/volunteer services. Any portion of Successful Respondent match consisting of volunteer hours must be quantified. See Section 1.3 Proposal Details.

20. Will a proposed ‘Successful Respondent Match’ of an amount higher than 10% be scored more favorably than the stated minimum 10%? Note the evaluation criteria does not reference the ‘Successful Respondent Match’.

RESPONSE: No, Successful Respondent Match is not part of the evaluation criteria for this RFP and will not impact a Respondent’s score.

21. Will deliverables provided by the awarded contractor be on agency letterhead (SECO-provided templates for monthly, quarterly, annual, and final reports)?

RESPONSE: No. SECO-provided deliverable templates are not on CPA letterhead.

22. Will any deliverables produced by the awarded contractor be shared with third parties outside of the agency?

RESPONSE: SECO may share deliverables produced by the awarded contractor to the Department of Energy, if requested. All deliverables associated with a contract between the Successful Applicant and CPA are subject to Open Records Requests.

23. Will the agency provide feedback on any draft deliverables (e.g. reports) to understand what is desired for final versions of deliverables?

RESPONSE: SECO will review all deliverables submitted by the Successful Respondent and provide feedback as needed.

24. During the performance of the stated scope of work, is there a requirement from the awarded contractor to provide assurance and/or opinion(s) pursuant to AICPA standards?

RESPONSE: No.

25. Please provide any specific tasks for the respondent to perform in monitoring SECO audits during site visits.

RESPONSE: Tasks for site visits should be presented by the Successful Respondent as part of the preliminary Compliance Monitoring Plan.

26. Please provide any required certifications the awarded respondent and subcontractors should possess related to the stated scope of work.

RESPONSE: SECO does not require Successful Respondents to possess any specific certifications for this RFP. The Successful Respondent must be a qualified, independent compliance monitoring firm.

27. Using the Davis-Bacon Act monitoring assessment component as an example, who will be responsible for selecting the 15% sample of awarded projects to review?

RESPONSE: SECO will select 15% of the awarded projects to receive site visits.

28. What are the criteria to select the sample of awarded projects for review?

RESPONSE: A combination of factors, such as facility size, contract complexity, and award amount, will determine which projects SECO selects for site-visits.

29. Are there site visits required for any other federal compliance monitoring components other than the Davis-Bacon Act?

RESPONSE: No. Site visits will be required for 15% of the awarded projects to ensure compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act.

30. For the purposes of providing accurate line-item pricing for each service or deliverable, what is the estimated volume of total awarded projects?

RESPONSE: See the response to Question #5.

31. Is the stated contract value of $1.8 million just for the initial term of the contract, or does the value include the optional renewal term?

RESPONSE: The total award amount of $1,800,000 will cover the initial contract term and any optional renewal terms.

32. Please explain a scenario where CPA would issue additional solicitations regarding the services described in the RFP, and how that would impact the contract with the awarded respondent.

RESPONSE: In the event that insufficient Compliance Monitoring services are provided, SECO reserves the right to issue additional solicitations regarding the Services referenced in the RFP.

33. Can CPA confirm whether the Successful Respondent under this RFP will be considered a contractor (providing services for a fee) or a subrecipient (receiving federal financial assistance)?

RESPONSE: Awardees under this RFP will be considered contractors to CPA.

34. Our interpretation of this contract is that the selected awardee would be a contractor and not a subrecipient, so the match provision and volunteer hours would not be applicable. Can SECO confirm?

RESPONSE: Successful Respondents awarded as part of this RFP are required to provide a minimum 10% match. See Section 1.3 of the RFP.

35. Our firm does not separate fringe benefits from standard billing rates or break out indirect vs.

direct costs, will SECO accept a justification that professional services rates already include fringe benefits and are within the 10% cap and cannot be itemized? In line with standard commercial and government contracting practices for professional services, our firm utilizes a fully-loaded, fixed hourly rate structure that embeds all associated costs, including fringe benefits and indirect costs.

36. The “Assurances – Non-Construction Programs” language appears directed at grant applicants.

Can CPA confirm whether these assurances apply to contractors providing monitoring services, or only to entities receiving DOE funds?

RESPONSE: The Assurances outlined in Attachment G apply to all Respondents under this RFP.

37. CPA requires all federal terms and conditions to flow down to subcontractors. For professional services firms, can CPA confirm which provisions are mandatory for contractors vs. those intended for subrecipients?

RESPONSE: Per Part 1 of Attachment P- Federal Terms and Conditions, the requirements within the attachment apply to the Contractor and its subcontractors.

38. The RFP references Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance cost principles. Can CPA confirm that these do Not apply to for-profit contractors except for procurement compliance?

RESPONSE: Yes.

39. Does the recent announcement regarding TX CPA's move to the VetHUB program impact this procurement; either in regards to the HUB percentage requirement, or to the types of HUBs that would now meet the HUB requirement?

RESPONSE: No. Procurements currently posted on the ESBD fall under the former rules for HUB and are not affected. The emergency rules do not require agencies to modify solicitations currently open for responses or resolicit solicitations that have closed.

40. Section 1.3 Proposal Details notes a required 10% minimum respondent match. The section references 2 CFR 200.306(e). Subsection (e) relates to “volunteer services” rather than a required respondent match. Further, subsection (a) of 2 CFR 200.306 seems to discourage or prohibit using voluntary committed costs as a factor when scoring the merits of applications/submissions. Could you please confirm that a) this verbiage is applicable for this RFP, and b) that the match is a requirement for this contract, and not voluntary?

RESPONSE: Successful Respondents awarded as part of this RFP are required to provide a minimum 10% match. Successful Respondent Match is not part of the evaluation criteria for this RFP and will not impact a Respondent’s score.