Inquiries and Answers for RFP AAAA 2027-0062.pdf

DPA Solicitation #:

RFP AAAA 2027*0062

Utility Management Software

INQUIRIES AND ANSWERS

Question 1: Will the Nimble Energy pilot continue after implementation of the new system?

Answer 1: The Nimble Energy pilot is grant funded until December 31, 2027. The pilot may alter after implementation of the new system but Nimble Energy will still be involved in State’s sustainability metrics tracking and impact reporting until the grant funds expire.

Question 2: Does the State anticipate obtaining approval for contract extensions beyond five years?

Answer 2: Please see Exhibit A, Section 1.3. The total duration of the Contract, from the Start Date until termination, and including the Department’s exercise of any options, is not anticipated to exceed ten (10) years, three (3) months.

Question 3: What are the average monthly bill volumes by automated retrieval, OCR upload, and manual entry?

Answer 3: Over the 12 most recently completed calendar months (October 2025–September 2026), 12,500 bills were created/imported — an average of 1,041.67 bills per month. About 40% of these were imported via OCR. Automated retrieval is a new process for the State and we do not have data on the number of bills imported via automated retrieval.

Month # Bills imported

Oct 2025 1,189

Nov 2025 995

Dec 2025 764

Jan 2026 1,008

Feb 2026 2,004

Mar 2026 937

Apr 2026 879

May 2026 1,013

Jun 2026 743

Jul 2026 1,274

Aug 2026 659

Sep 2026 1,035

Question 4: Approximately how many of the 3,000 existing accounts will remain active after cleanup?

Answer 4: The State is actively cleaning up accounts before the end of this Fiscal Year to gain a better understanding of the accounts needing to move to the next system.

Question 5: What export formats will be available for the historical EnergyCAP data?

Answer 5: Files in the following formats: .csv, .xlsx, and .xls. API integration is also available.

Question 6: Are historical bill images, attachments, and interval records also required for migration?

Answer 6: Historical bill images should be considered in migration. The proposed price should include an option for historical bill images to be included. If this is cost prohibitive, the State may choose to save historical bills in a separate location.

Question 7: Which historical data-cleaning tasks will State staff handle?

Answer 7: This is to be discussed with the vendor. The State staff will handle as much data cleaning and migration as needed to clarify the data. It is encouraged that different pricing structures are offered as a response to this RFP with different levels of involvement.

Question 8: Is July 1, 2027 also the target system go-live date?

Answer 8: Yes, July 1, 2027 is the target system go-live date.

Question 9: Beyond Xcel and Black Hills Energy, which utilities should be connected at go-live?

Answer 9: The State operates across all utilities in Colorado. Linked is a list of utility accounts currently in EnergyCAP.

Question 10: Will the State arrange utility-account authorizations needed for automated data retrieval?

Answer 10: The State will provide required credentials.

Question 11: How many EV charging and renewable-generation assets are expected at go-live?

Answer 11: Any existing EV charging meters and renewable-energy generation assets are listed in Exhibit A. The State has additional EV charging meters that should be incorporated into this system but will not be expected at go-live.

Question 12: How many users are expected, by agency and access level?

Answer 12: Approximately 3 users per agency at this point. Access level depends on the capabilities of the software. For example, all users should be able to view the data but perhaps only 2 users should be able to input bills. As this project evolves, we can expect 5-7 users per agency (incorporate accounting teams as necessary).

Question 13: Does the State require integration with a specific identity provider for single sign-on?

Answer 13: The State is not seeking single sign-on as part of this software.

Question 14: Is there a preferred weather-data source for normalization calculations?

Answer 14: The State does not have a preferred system. The current system pulls from weather stations, National Weather Service and NOAA stations.

Question 15: Which existing asset management systems, if any, must be integrated at go-live?

Answer 15: The data in EnergyCAP should be integrated at go-live

Question 16: Which emission factors and calculation standards should guide greenhouse gas reporting?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vVwJtA19heCOTRI1iQftoQ_iJ6GzH6WBJL8hVldyywU/edit?gid=1392552450#gid=1392552450

Answer 16: GHG Protocol, eGRID/EPA and IEA

Question 17: How many meters currently provide interval data, and at what time intervals?

Answer 17: None

Question 18: Does the State have existing thresholds for flagging billing errors and abnormal usage?

Answer 18: No, these are built into the EnergyCAP system and the State did not choose the threshold.

Question 19: How many participants and locations should vendors plan for in-person training?

Answer 19: Approximately 30 in person participants for a 2 day training in one location.

Question 20: Does the State have recovery time and recovery point targets for system outages?

Answer 20: Please see Exhibit A, Section 3.11.3, Contractor shall maintain an average uptime of 99% or higher. Additionally, please see Exhibit A, section 3.12.1., If data becomes unavailable, Contractor shall provide communication and a plan for resolution, to the extent feasible, within three (3 ) business days. (i.e. if the system is being upgraded on a weekend)

Question 21: Should the 90% extraction accuracy target be measured per data field or per bill?

Answer 21: Per data field.

Question 22: What State review process is expected for bills requiring manual validation?

Answer 22: The State does not have a specific method that must be used for manual validation.

Vendors should provide the method that they use to complete this type of validation.

Question 23: Attachment 1 lists what appear to be 9 solar PV accounts/meters in scope (NPRMAS, NFLMAS, NPV100, CDOT's 2829 W Howard Pl and related maintenance shop sites under the US Solar PPA, and DOC facilities AVCF, CTCF, SCCF, DRDC, DWCF, and SCF tied to community solar gardens). Can the State confirm this is the complete and current list of on-site/PPA renewable generation assets in scope for tracking under this RFP, or are there additional sites not yet reflected in Attachment 1?

Answer 23: There is one more additional solar site under DPA that has not been added to the current utility management system. The State is actively adding solar at different locations and therefore more solar assets will be incorporated into a future system.

Question 24: What are the specific limitations or gaps in the current EnergyCAP system that the State is hoping to address with a new solution?

Answer 24: The State is issuing this solicitation in order to ensure compliance with the Colorado Procurement Code rather than because of performance or functional deficiencies in the existing system. However, the current system’s OCR has trouble parsing large bills with several meters and often creates errors; lacks backend support to help with API integration for utility accounts;

does not have a method built into it to communicate with the facility manager or utility accounts;

experiences significant backlog and waiting for historical bill uploads; the system does not pick up when a format in a bill changes or meter or account number has changed/does not have a way to autofix this besides creating error messages

Question 25: Please clarify how the existing grant-funded Nimble Energy pilot program is expected to interact with, or be replaced by, the system procured under this RFP.

Answer 25: This will be decided after a vendor is awarded and needs to be a discussion with Nimble Energy and the selected vendor.

Question 26: Has the State engaged with any energy/utility management software providers in connection with scoping this RFP, and if so, were any specific product capabilities or gaps identified during those conversations that materially shaped the requirements in Exhibit A?

Answer 26: No software providers were engaged in connection with the creation of this RFP.

Question 27: Is the target go-live date for the new system expected to coincide with the July 1, 2027 historical data migration deadline, or is go-live anticipated separately from completion of data migration?

Answer 27: Yes, the new system needs to have a go-live date of July 1, 2027.

Question 28: Please confirm the specific version of WCAG the State requires (the RFP references both Level AA 'most current version' and, in Exhibit B, WCAG 2.1+) and the compliance deadline the State will apply during evaluation.

Answer 28: This has been revised in Exhibit B- Offeror Response Questions.

Question 29: Tango Analytics' standard SaaS Agreement is attached for the State's reference. Given the scope of the proposed engagement, we propose that Tango and the State work together to negotiate final contract terms following identification of Tango as a finalist (e.g., if selected for oral presentations) or, absent that step, upon Notice of Intent to Award. Please advise if this approach is acceptable to the State.

Answer 29: The State’s IT Contract, Exhibit C of the RFP package, will be the contractual document utilized for this project. The State may consider negotiating additional terms as an exhibit to the State’s contract with the selected vendor.

Question 30: Please clarify how the State will validate the Offeror's reported AI/OCR accuracy rate during the evaluation process and over the term of the Contract.

Answer 30: The State does not have a template or evaluation process to evaluate OCR/AI accuracy. Our primary requirements are maximum data accuracy and a significant reduction in manual labor for State staff. The State welcomes any solution that can consistently meet high accuracy thresholds for unseen bill formats while minimizing human intervention and template maintenance.

Question 31: Could the State describe its expectations for the manual validation process when an automated read fails — including the scope of data to be validated, the expected timeframe for completing validation, and how the State would like this process documented or reported back to confirm it occurred?

Answer 31: The State does not have a specific method that must be used for manual validation.

Vendors should provide the method that they use to complete this type of validation.

Question 32: Describe the expected process for coordinating with agency personnel to verify active versus inactive accounts ahead of the historical data migration.

Answer 32: The State is currently working to verify active vs inactive accounts with the goal of giving the next vendor a list of ONLY active accounts.

Question 33: Please describe what “cleaning” of old/inactive accounts is expected to entail, and who will be responsible for performing that work: the State, the Contractor, or a shared effort.

Answer 33: While the State is actively working to verify active vs inactive accounts, the Contractor should be expected to work with State agencies to confirm the accounts “going live” are all active. The State will help facilitate this work. The State expects to find inactive accounts during this process.

Question 34: In what format will the approximately 3,000 accounts and 10,100 meters of historical data (back to 2015) be provided for import?

Answer 34: See answer 5

Question 35: Please confirm whether API integration is a mandatory requirement for all utilities, or whether OCR/manual/bulk entry methods are acceptable for utilities where API integration is not available.

Answer 35: API integration is not mandatory for all utilities as the State does not think it is feasible for all utilities. OCR/manual/bulk entry methods are acceptable.

Question 36: For utilities where API integration is expected (e.g., Xcel Energy, Black Hills Energy), will the State provide existing utility account login credentials to the Contractor, or does the State expect the Contractor to establish these credentials independently?

Answer 36: The State will provide credentials.

Question 37: Could the State clarify its expectation for anomaly detection within the benchmarking and analytical reporting tools?

Answer 37: The system should flag anomalies when there may be high usage or a leak, for example when a water flow exceeds 200-300% of the historic peak demand, a continuous outage, or the water does not drop below a non-zero threshold over a continuous time period. The State does not have standard criteria in place as this was already factored into EnergyCAP but is open to hearing what softwares use and past successes in flagging anomalies.

Question 38: Please clarify the expected granularity of EV charger usage tracking across different time-of-use rate periods (e.g., session-level, hourly, daily).

Answer 38: The expectation is to feed Chargepoint, or other EV Charger, data into the system.

An example for one charger is linked here.

Question 39: For facilities with EV chargers, does the State currently receive a single utility bill covering all chargers at a location, or does each charger / charger group have its own separate meter and bill?

Answer 39: EV Chargers are owned and operated by each agency which manages their own bills. Some chargers have their own meters while others are lumped into the facility meter. The State would like to first tackle incorporating the charger session data from Chargepoint into the new system.

Question 40: Attachment 1 shows EV charger usage billed directly through the serving utility (e.g., Xcel, LPEA) as standard electric meters. Can the State confirm whether any EV chargers are also managed through a separate charging network platform (e.g., ChargePoint) for session-level or time-of-use data, or whether utility billing is the sole data source today?

Answer 40: Most of the State’s chargers are Chargepoint chargers with the exception of 108 chargers that a combination of ABB (51 chargers), Rivian (21 chargers), AeroEnvironment (4 chargers), Clipper Creek (5 chargers), Wall Box (9 chargers), Phihong (1 charger).

Question 41: The requirement references normalizing data for "daylight hours" on a facility-by-facility basis, in addition to weather normalization. Could the State clarify the https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lfndCa5fz7zjfdVvtzA1O5Zx3P96DGltDfGzAW6_cEY/edit?gid=1420451765#gid=1420451765 specific use case this is intended to address (e.g., isolating seasonal lighting load, daylight savings time shifts affecting billing periods, or another factor)?

Answer 41: The State intends to normalize for daylight hours to address the following variables:

buildings with daylight sensors may run shorter purely based on daylight hours, independent of weather; accounting for geographic latitude and daylight savings time/seasonal shifts as mentioned, and isolating seasonal load.

Question 42: How many facilities and/or meters does the State currently track within ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager?

Answer 42: There are currently 1480 properties in EnergySTAR Portfolio Manager, many of which are outdated. There are 63 properties shared for benchmark reporting.

Question 43: Does the State have a specific asset management system or systems currently in use or planned that the proposed solution should be compatible with, and what level of compatibility is expected (e.g., data import/export, real-time API integration)?

Answer 43: The State does have various asset management systems but at this time it is not expected to require the utility management system to incorporate with the asset management systems.

Question 44: How are meters tracked today within EnergyCAP? Specifically, does the State currently receive interval/smart meter data, and are submeters in use at any facilities? If so, please describe the current data source and granularity.

Answer 44: Currently the State does not have interval data in EnergyCAP (we have in the past but it is not active). If submeters are installed, they are used at facilities! EnergyCAP currently receives its data all via utility bills. There are currently no submeters tied to EnergyCAP pushing data but this would be an ideal situation :).

Question 45: Does the Department have a set or allocated budget for this contract?

Answer 45: While the Department does not have a specific budget limit for this contract, Offerors are encouraged to provide their most competitive pricing and to keep in mind the State’s ongoing budget constraints.

Question 46: Please confirm the scope Offerors should size the solution for: the number of active utility accounts, the number of facilities or sites, the State's approximate annual utility spend, and the commodities to be tracked. Should the solution also track waste and recycling and telecommunications (phone, internet and cable) bills?

Answer 46: This answer is based on the current system. However, the solution should take into account that not all these sites are active and the current system needs to be cleaned and validated. The number of utility accounts was given in answer 9. The current number of sites is 2,518. The annual utility spend is ~$30 M. The commodities to track include electricity, natural gas, steam, propane, diesel fuel, gasoline, coal, solar PV, wind, renewable electricity, renewable natural gas, water, sewer, wastewater. The solution does not need to include recycling and telecommunications.

Question 47: Please describe the historical export the State will provide: file format, whether it includes bill-level line items or monthly totals only, and whether bill PDFs are included. Will utility online account credentials and bill files gathered under the current grant-funded pilot program be made available to the Contractor?

Answer 47: The file format exported will be in .csv and can include granular details in bill-level items. PDFs are in the current system and will have to be pulled separately. Yes, utility account credentials and bills under the current grant-funded pilot will be made available.

Question 48: Will Offerors be evaluated on the degree of automation in bill collection, specifically the ability to set up automated retrieval for each facility and utility account directly from utility online portals, so that new bills arrive without State staff downloading, uploading or forwarding them? Approximately what share of accounts does the State expect to be collected automatically?

Answer 48: Yes, this type of automation will be considered as part of the offeror’s organizational experience as it pertains to technical experience with multiple utility data ingestion. The State does not have a current estimate of how many accounts can be collected automatically at this time.

Question 49: Should the system accept every way the State receives bills through one intake (utility portal retrieval, emailed PDFs, scanned paper bills, utility data files, bulk spreadsheets and manual entry), with every method feeding the same validated dataset rather than separate tools or workflows?

Answer 49: Vendors may propose either an all-in-one ingestion platform or a system with separate workflows. The State will evaluate both approaches based on total cost of ownership, deployment speed, and long-term data integrity.

Question 50: Given the accuracy limits of template-based OCR, does the State prefer solutions that use artificial intelligence to extract bill data, including from bill formats the system has not seen before, without building templates for each utility? Will the 90% accuracy requirement be measured on individual extracted fields compared with the source bill, and reported to the State monthly?

Answer 50: The State does not mandate a specific extraction method, whether template-based or AI-driven. Our primary requirements are maximum data accuracy and a significant reduction in manual labor for State staff. The State welcomes any solution that can consistently meet high accuracy thresholds for unseen bill formats while minimizing human intervention and template maintenance.

Question 51: Should Offerors confirm that every line item on every bill (for example demand, time-of-use blocks, riders, supply and delivery charges, taxes and fees) is extracted and stored as structured, reportable data, rather than usage and total cost only?

Answer 51: All line items should be able to be extracted and stored.

Question 52: Should the missing-bills report identify, for each facility and month, the cause of each missing bill (for example billing cycle not yet closed, a failed utility online account login, or a bill not received) and the action needed to resolve it, including automatically requesting the bill from the responsible facility contact?

Answer 52: This is not a required specification; however, the State welcomes proposals that offer this functionality.

Question 53: Should collection, validation, auditing and reporting be performed within the single proposed system, without relying on a separate third-party data collection service to supply bills to the reporting platform? Should every submitted bill be traceable in the system from submission to report, including who submitted it, the original file, and any duplicate it was matched to?

Answer 53: This is not a required specification; however, the State welcomes proposals that offer this functionality.

Question 54: Should State users be able to build, customize and share their own dashboards and reports (for example by agency, facility, fund or commodity, for agency leadership), including by asking questions in plain language, without vendor professional services or custom development?

Answer 54: Yes.

Question 55: Will the State evaluate Offerors on their ability to reduce utility costs, such as identifying and recovering billing errors, late fees and rate savings? Should Offerors also include optional pricing for centralized utility bill payment as a value-added service?

Answer 55: This will be evaluated as part of the Offeror’s organizational experience. If Offerors have optional add ons such as centralized utility bill payment then yes it should be included.

Question 56: Will the State require each Offeror to provide the Evaluation Committee with login access to a working evaluation environment of the proposed system during evaluation, in addition to any oral presentation or scripted demonstration?

Answer 56: The Department is currently not anticipating asking for an evaluation environment in addition to any requested demonstrations, however, the Department does reserve the right to ask vendors for an evaluation environment in the event that the Department believes it would be needed.

Question 57: To help Offerors propose an appropriately scaled solution, can the State share its current combined annual cost for utility management software and related data collection services, and how heavily Cost will be weighted relative to the other evaluation criteria?

Answer 57: The detailed weighting for the evaluation criteria will not be disclosed at this time.

Vendors should address each criteria thoroughly. Offerors will be evaluated based on the published evaluation criteria and how the information provided meets those criteria.