Questions and Answers RFP S-DASOBO-00013296.docx

Questions and Answers for

RFP # S-DASOBO-00013296

Technical Assistance and Analysis for the Oregon Natural and Working Lands Net Biological Carbon and Sequestration Inventory

1. What is the not-to-exceed amount for price proposals? (Is there a desired budget cap for this project?)

The price proposal should not exceed $400,000.00.

2. The RFP states that, for cropland biomass, “Anthropogenic GHG emissions associated with direct human activities on cropland, such as fertilizer use, liming, fuel combustion and agricultural equipment), should not be accounted for in the Inventory.” Do you want to quantify N2O emissions associated with fertilizer field use as well as from leaching and volatilization?

We are not looking for quantification of N2O generated from these processes associated with fertilizer applications on cropland. The State either does, or will, address N2O emissions from these activities and processes in the Department of Environmental Quality’s sector-based emissions Inventory, which is separate from this work.

3. You state what you do not want included in the cropland biomass category, can you give some more information about what you do want included in that category?

Where data are available, we are seeking estimates of carbon sequestration and storage in aboveground live biomass, aboveground dead biomass, belowground live biomass, and soil pools from croplands growing perennial crops in Oregon. Where data are available, we are also seeking estimates of carbon sequestration and storage in soil carbon pool for annual crops. If other stocks and fluxes of carbon are available in cropland that can be tracked with data and methods satisfying our criteria, we would be interested in tracking those as well. Where data and methods are not yet available, we would like recommendations for how they may be developed for use in future Inventory analyses.

4. For the soil carbon category, are you interested in stocks, flows, or both? Do you want us to consider the impacts of the carbon-nitrogen cycle on the soil carbon sequestration?

We are interested in stocks, stock change, and lateral carbon flows—if Proposers are able to include them while meeting the budget requirements of the RFP. We anticipate methodologies may vary depending upon land type and data available.

Considering the carbon-nitrogen cycle on soil sequestration is of interest if the budget requirements of the RFP can be met.

5. The scope of the RFP does not include “GHGs, and GHG-producing activities already accounted for by Oregon’s Sector-Based GHG Emissions Inventory, such as enteric fermentation and manure management.” Would the State be interested in an option for tools to quantify these emissions if they do not impact the budget or timeline of the project?

If it does not impact the budget or timeline of the project, improving the tools to quantify these emissions would be valuable to the State.

6. The RFP states that “Methods shall be transparent, repeatable, and use free, or lowest-cost tools.” For a lowest-cost option, has the State budgeted for software licenses to support future GHG inventories?

The State has standard software licenses for ArcGIS Pro with Spatial Analyst, as well as ArcGIS Online services (but not Enterprise), as well as Microsoft Office products such as Excel. We anticipate most of this work being completed in ArcGIS Pro or QGIS, and/or via Python (including arcpy) or R code or Excel. We prefer the software listed here; however, we have the ability to consider resources helpful to maintain and improve an Inventory including but not limited to software licenses, data acquisition, or processing hardware.

7. The RFP states that “Methods shall be transparent, repeatable, and use free, or lowest-cost tools.” Can you provide an estimate for what that State considers lowest-cost?

The State does not have criteria for estimating what qualifies as a lowest-cost tool; however, the overall Proposal will be evaluated for overall project cost.

8. Does the bid expect that only existing/available data is utilized in the Inventory or is there an expectation that new data is collected/generated during the project term?

We expect that only existing/available data will be utilized in the Inventory. We anticipate that data will be generated by the successful Proposer in the process of utilizing existing data sets, but we do not expect the successful Proposer to generate new data through actions such as field sampling or photogrammetry.

9. Are there any particular models that the State requires to be included in the methodology and if so, would the models/outputs be shared with the team?

The State has no particular model required to be included in the methodology. However, guidelines for Inventory construction recommended by the US EPA and IPCC should be followed.

10. Would the State be interested in capacity building elements being incorporated into the proposal?

Proposals should not include capacity building elements or tasks.

11. Does the State expect to include emissions/removals from inland wetlands and marine ecosystems in the Inventory or is the focus primarily on the coastal wetlands?

Broadly, where data and methods are available, we anticipate estimates for all sources of emissions/removals on all land use types listed in the RFP. We anticipate coastal wetlands will be able to be included in the Inventory based on current data and methods available. We would like the successful Proposer to provide recommendations on how to improve these data/methods over time. The land types listed in this RFP do not include other marine ecosystems. We anticipate challenges with State-level data and methods to include emissions/removals from inland wetlands in this Inventory. However, we would like the successful Proposer to provide a methodology for the State to consider for including inland wetlands, or subtypes of inland wetlands (e.g. peatlands) in this Inventory or future Inventory updates. We would also like the successful Proposer to provide recommendations on how to improve these data/methods over time.

12. In regard to emissions/removals from forests, the RFP says, "The Inventory shall quantify live biomass (such as trunk, branches, and bark of trees), understory (shrubs and plants growing beneath the main canopy of a forest), and their roots, and, if possible, dead biomass (e.g., standing and down dead trees, roots, and litter)." Does the State have field data (measurements) for trees, understory vegetation and litter to calculate carbon content in those pools?

The State does not have its own field data for these forest carbon pools. In the case that appropriate data are not available for Oregon, we expect the successful Proposer to use national datasets if appropriate, or clarify that such data are not available and to provide the State with guidance as to how such data may be generated for use in future Inventory analyses.

13. Does the State have an arrangement with the NASA program Carbon Monitoring System to provide support and/or access to their data products and tools?

We do not have a current arrangement with the NASA program Carbon Monitoring System.

14. The proposal indicates that the Inventory should be updateable as new datasets become available and that methods should be “transparent, repeatable, and utilize free or lowest-cost tools.” If such tools do not exist, do you anticipate that developing an Inventory tool will be part of the deliverable?

Per the Data and Methods Approach section of the RFP, ODOE requests that the successful Proposer provide in the Data and Methods Approach all data and methods used in the inventory analysis, as well as a description as to how to use them to produce the final Inventory analysis. We would be interested in the successful Proposer developing an open-source Inventory tool to include among the final products of the Data and Methods Approach along with written guidance for its usage.

15. Could you clarify what is meant by “guidance” in the following context: "Proposer must also provide guidance for how data and methods may be updated in future years to produce new inventories every even-numbered year"? Are you envisioning a methodology document detailing the location of the data and how to update it in the Inventory?

Correct. To the extent feasible, the State would like to avoid depending on third party expertise for every Inventory update, so we are seeking documentation of all methods and data used in the Data and Methods Approach. Essentially, we want sufficient guidance for State staff to find the data, apply the methods, reproduce the final inventory analysis, and to be able to update the inventory analysis in future years. This guidance will be used by State staff to ensure the accuracy of the Inventory analysis as well as its utility toward producing future Inventory updates.

16. Was the pre-proposal conference recorded, and if so, could it be shared?

No, it was not recorded.