IFB_23ISD017_Q_A.pdf

Q&A

IFB 23ISD017

Question #1: Is there priority on particular program types, e.g., project level, facility level, or organizational level reporting programs?

Answer- CARB is looking for programs that support reporting on an organizational level. In addition, CARB is interested in details about how emissions at a finer resolution are rolled up into the organizational level.

Question #2: Is there priority for a particular sector, e.g., energy?

Answer - No. CARB is seeking review of programs that include methods to accurately quantify GHGs from emitters across the economy.

Question #3: Would CARB be amenable to granting an extension to the bid due date to allow for the development of a higher quality bid (e.g., a 1-week extension to March 29)?

Answer - CARB is unable to grant any extensions to the date for bid submission.

Question #4: On the Attachment 3 Contractor Cost Sheet, what should be entered in the column titled “Contractor Provided Estimate”? Is this the same as the column titled “Total Cost for Each Subtask” or is it something different?

Answer - Only the far right column, “Total Cost for Each Subtask”, should be completed. An addendum to the IFB will be posted with this update to Attachment 3, Contractor Cost Sheet, removing the column header “Contractor Provided Estimate”.

Question #5: Could this work potentially cause high conflict of interest (COI) for CARB Accredited GHG or LCFS Verification Bodies?

Answer - No. The analysis called for under this IFB does not require the disclosure or review of any information that would create a conflict of interest for any reporting entities or verification bodies.

Question #6: Would Oregon and Washington GHG mandatory reporting programs be considered additional reporting programs, or would they be considered too similar to the EPA GHG reporting program for Task 1?

Answer - This decision should be made under Task 1 of the contract resulting from this RFP. As noted in the IFB, Exhibit A Scope of Work, the initial evaluation should show all the programs considered by the contractor with an explanation of why the programs were chosen or not chosen for final evaluation. CARB staff will review and provide input when developing a final list of programs for evaluation. However, it is likely that since the Oregon and Washington GHG mandatory reporting programs were developed in close consultation with CARB we would ultimately consider these too similar with California and EPA programs to provide meaningful comparisons.

Question #7: Would lifecycle analysis-type reporting, such as Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) reporting, be considered a GHG reporting program for the purposes of this IFB?

Answer - CARB would not consider the LCFS to be a reporting system for the analysis called for in this IFB. CARB is interested in an analysis of programs that quantify GHGs from emitters across the economy. We are unable to speak to whether lifecycle analysis may be a component of some programs that would be considered for analysis.