RFP_24NC0330_Addendum_1.pdf

RFP Secondary 24NC0330 Question and Answers

THE ORIGINAL EVALUATION AND SCORING SHEET ATTACHMENT 16 HAS BEEN REPLACED

THE ORIGINAL RFP HAS BEEN REPLACED

1) With only 4 weeks total to respond to the RFP and questions being answered 2 weeks before proposals are due there is not sufficient time for any bidder other than the incumbent to provide competitive responses to this RFP. We have a number of significant questions (below) that impact our teaming, approach, and ability to bid. We respectfully request at least 4 weeks between the time questions are answered and the due date of proposals. Would CPUC consider such a request?

Answer 1. The CPUC needs to ensure that there is enough time to transition work to the new contractor should the incumbent not be selected. In order to accommodate this, CPUC staff must maintain the current schedule since we cannot extend our existing contract. Unfortunately, CPUC staff is constrained and cannot consider an extension of the RFP.

2) Is CPUC open to contractors using commercially available models for capacity expansion analysis that would require stakeholders to have their own licenses (purchased from the commercial model provider) to be able to run?

Answer 2. No, stakeholders must be able to access the model at no cost, and with no required license. The CPUC will not consider bids where there is a cost or license requirement for public stakeholders to use the capacity expansion model.

3) What is the maximum budget over the 6-year period that CPUC has available to fund this contract?

Answer 3. As stated in Decision 24-02-047 pg. 142, the CPUC shall hire and manage one or more contractors to perform tasks in support of the integrated resource planning process, with costs not to exceed a total of $18 million over the course of 6 years.1

4) What is the maximum bonus scoring associated with the statement on page 8: "Contractors with their own capacity expansion model will get a bonus in scoring"?

Answer 4. A contractor cannot achieve a maximum score in the evaluation process without providing their own capacity expansion model. The statement on page 8 of the RFP has been revised for clarification.

5) What does the CPUC mean by "at least one manager for each sector under this contract" on page 8? Can CPUC specifically list the sectors? Can you please provide more detail about this requirement including how the CPUC defines the sectors under this contract?

Answer 5. The requirement of “at least one manager for each sector” is more clearly defined under the Minimum Qualifications section on page 62. The Prime Contractor should have at least one manager “available” for each task (work track, project, or deliverable), as appropriate.

1 https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M525/K918/525918033.PDF https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M525/K918/525918033.PDF https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M525/K918/525918033.PDF

6) The RFP has conflicting information regarding DVBE subcontracting. On Page 63 it requires 3%. On

Page 72 it says bonus points are provided for subcontracting to DVBE starting at 1% (implying there is no minimum requirement). Can CPUC clarify?

Answer 6. On page 63 2F, the mandatory 3% DVBE participation for the main contractor can be spread across different subcontractors that will be scored individually based on the percentages shown on page 72. Subcontractor information should be added to Attachment 8 Bidder Declaration Form.

7) Page 10 says narratives are required for "Deliverables 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12,13, 14, 15, and 17" this seems inconsistent with the scoring criteria (Attachment 16). The scoring criteria seems to also award points for Deliverables 04 and 05 but also does not assign any point value to Deliverable 14 and 17. Furthermore the numbers and titles of the deliverables in Attachment 16 do not match those listed in the SOW in Exhibit A. Can CPUC please review the names / numbering / required narratives in Exhibit A vs. those in Attachment 16 to provide clarity on what is required and what is being scored?

Answer 7. As stated on page 10, narratives are required for Deliverables 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12,13, 14, 15, and 17, and bidders will be scored on those eleven deliverables. The deliverables in Attachment 16 have been revised to reflect the appropriate numbering as listed in the Scope of Work. The deliverable names and scoring criteria in Attachment 16 remain the same as originally posted.

8) The deliverable numbering in the Tasks and Deliverables section of the RFP does not match the deliverable numbering in the scoring criteria. Can you update the evaluation and scoring criteria (or the deliverables) to align them?

Answer 8. The deliverables in Attachment 16 have been revised to reflect the appropriate numbering as listed in the Scope of Work. The deliverable names and scoring criteria in Attachment 16 remain the same as originally posted.

9) Attachment 17 states "All bidders...are required to fill in this document to be scored on this". As we read this document there don't seem to be any fields to fill in, nor are there any direct questions bidder are being asked to answer. What does CPUC mean by "fill in this document'?

Answer 9. As stated in Section IV Submission Requirements, the Proposer must provide a transition memo outlining an effective approach to transition all items outlined in Attachment 17 from the previous consultant to the Proposer’s firm. All bidders, regardless of whether they are the current Primary Contractor or not, are required to submit a response.

Attachment 17 does not provide fields for the Proposer to fill in. Rather, the Proposer is expected to provide a written memo in the format of their choosing detailing strategies to transition all applicable items outlined in Attachment 17 to their firm.

10) SERVM is mentioned multiple placed in the RFP as something CPUC has and CPUC staff can run.

However, Page 17 says "the Prime Contractor will need to work with the Commission’s production cost model, SERVM, to align inputs and assumptions and differences between the two models".

Does CPUC expect/require the prime contractor to have SERVM licenses? Is CPUC willing to provide the prime contractor with a CPUC-issued laptop with a CPUC-configured SERVM model and license? If not, how will CPUC share its SERVM model details with the prime contractor to facilitate this alignment process?

Answer 10. The CPUC does not require or expect the prime contractor to have SERVM license, nor will it issue a CPUC laptop with the model and license. The Prime Contractor is expected to be able to work with SERVM outputs, deeply understand those outputs, and collaborate with CPUC staff on aligning on the inputs used in SERVM and with the Prime Contractor’s capacity expansion model.

11) Can CPUC clarify what is meant by the following on page 8: "Prime contractor[s]...own capacity expansion model""? Does it mean a model developed by the Prime Contractor? Does ""own"" refer the legal definition of ownership of intellectual property (IP) in that the prime contractor must bring its own IP? If so, does CPUC expect contractors to make its IP available free for public use?

We see this as extremely limiting.

Answer 11. The Primary Contractor does not need to own the IP of the capacity expansion model.

However, Primary Contractors without their own capacity expansion model cannot achieve a maximum score in the evaluation process. The statement on page 8 of the RFP has been revised for clarification. The model used in IRP does need to be freely available to the public for record-development and to ensure that stakeholders can robustly participate in the IRP process.

12) Can CPUC clarify what is meant by - "Proposer's subcontracting capacity expansion modeling expertise to other vendors will not be considered"? Does this mean Prime contractors cannot have subcontractors that have CE modeling expertise in addition to the prime contractor's own CE modeling expertise? If true, what is the reasoning for this?

Answer 12. CPUC expects that the Primary Contractor is staffed to run a capacity expansion model. That does not preclude the Primary Contractor from also having subcontractors doing that work, but the entire function cannot be contracted out. Since the contract’s core function is capacity expansion modeling and supporting IRP staff in developing portfolios, it is important for CPUC’s Prime Contractor to be fluent in and able to effectively do the work required in this contract.

13) Given that the 2024-2026 IRP cycle has already begun, is the work to update I&A and model functionality currently underway and the Contractor is expected to continue from where things are left at the time of the initiation of this contract?

Answer 13. Yes, the work to update the model and IRP’s I&A is currently underway. For both – as with all the work scoped in this RFP – the CPUC expects that the Prime Contractor to be able to continue where things left off at the time of the contract initiation.

14) What are the standard procedures referred to here: "The Prime Contractor will need to be able to work with RESOLVE unless and until the CPUC chooses to and is able to transition to a new model, following standard procedures, taking into consideration the IRP cycle."

Answer 14. RESOLVE is publicly available and is the current model the IRP proceeding uses. It is expected that the Prime Contractor be able to run RESOLVE to derive portfolios if needed if a new model is selected and cannot produce portfolios that the CPUC deems satisfactory.

15) On Page 19 the RFP asks that the contractor "Coordinate with organizations and agencies in neighboring states". Does CPUC have existing relationships with target organizations/entities?

Does CPUC have existing coordination venues or is the bidder expected to launch and manage such coordination on their own?

Answer 15. The CPUC and the State of California more broadly have relationships with agencies and organizations in neighboring states. At this time, it is unlikely that the Prime Contractor will be expected to lead these coordination efforts but will be expected to participate as directed by the

CPUC.

16) Is CPUC expecting the CAISO local area modeling improvement in RESOLVE to take place in the 2024-2026 IRP cycle?

Answer 16. The Commission has made public commitments to undertake local area modeling at some point but has not yet defined a timeline for that work to occur.

17) It is our interpretation that CPUC would like to continue to use the RESOLVE model in the 2024-26 IRP Cycle and may consider alternative models only starting in the 2027-28 IRP Cycle. Is this correct? If not, how soon would CPUC consider an alternative to the RESOLVE model?

Answer 17. That is not a correct interpretation. The CPUC needs to continue developing portfolios without interruption, including for the 2026-2027 TPP. CPUC expects the Prime Contractor to be able to deliver a portfolio that it deems satisfactory. If the only way to deliver that is to use the available RESOLVE version, it is expected that Prime Contractor could do that. However, the CPUC is not tied to using RESOLVE for the rest of the 2024-26 IRP Cycle.

18) If a team member has supported a CPUC-jurisdictional LSE with its IRP filing in the last 3 years (but is no longer actively supporting) is that considered a conflict of interest?

Answer 18. If a Team Member is currently working on or has done work for a CPUC-jurisdictional LSE during the past three years, the Team Member should disclose all connected assignments, total amount of payments (if applicable), duration, the nature of work, and whether the work will be ongoing. Disclosure of any potential conflict of interest by a bidder will not automatically disqualify the bid; all disclosed conflicts will be reviewed and evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

19) Is CPUC expecting the Contractor to undertake these comprehensive refreshes of the transmission system in the 2024-2026 IRP cycle for feeding into the 2026-2027 TPP? Or is the expectation that these comprehensive updates need to be undertaken in subsequent IRP cycles?

Answer 19. The CPUC will not pre-commit to the scope of the analysis it needs for the 2024-2026 IRP cycle, including the 2026-2027 TPP as the scope and need for updates can be based on a host of factors, including ones outside of IRP’s direct control. Thus, it is expected that the Prime Contractor could develop a 2026-2027 TPP portfolio per the Commission’s guidance as soon as they are onboarded.

20) The scoring criteria description for 1.2.23, 1.2.24 and 1.2.25 all read exactly the same and are worth 10, 5, and 5 points respectively. Can CPUC please review and remove/edit duplicate lines?

Answer 20. The scoring criteria descriptions for 1.2.24 and 1.2.25 have been revised to reflect all analyses required under Deliverable 09.

21) Is it necessary for the capacity expansion to be publicly available at the time the proposal is submitted or can it be made publicly available during the execution of the contract?

Answer 21. The model must be made publicly available prior to the Commission evaluating bids as we cannot take a future commitment at face value. Bids without publicly available models will not be considered.

22) As part of its responsibilities under this contract, will the contractor be required to run additional models beyond the CPUC model that are used by the LSEs? For example, if an LSE uses PLEXOS, would the contractor be required to also be able to run PLEXOS to be able to review the LSE's filing data?

Answer 22. The Commission broadly expects that the Prime Contractor will be able understand and interpret results from other models, such as PLEXOS, but does not expect that the Prime Contractor will be required to run LSE-specific models.

23) Under Electrification, Distributed Energy Resource, and related Analyses in Deliverable 09, is the Prime Contractor expected to estimate DER and electrification potential and undertake valuation of these resources as part of the IRP work, or is the expectation that the Prime Contractor review and assess existing research conducted in these areas through coordination with other consultants and provide suggestions on how those could be improved or be made suitable for the

IRP?

Answer 23. The CPUC expects the Prime Contractor to be able to provide estimates or suggest methodologies that it would employ to estimate this topic. Those estimations and methodologies would likely necessitate reviewing and assessing existing research and could include working with other consultants as appropriate.

24) Under IRP Program Evaluation in Deliverable 10c, the RFP mentions that the Prime Contractor must have a subcontractor with the skillset to conduct a program evaluation and that a firewall shall be implemented for the study to remain unbiased. In cases where the Prime Contractor has the requisite skillset for program evaluation, will CPUC accept the Prime Contractor establishing a separate sub-team for conducting program evaluation and creating a firewall between that sub-team and the core IRP team, or is the Prime Contractor required to have a sub-contractor for undertaking program evaluation?

Answer 24. The Prime Contractor will not be required to hire a subcontractor to do this work;

instead, a firewall will be implemented for the certain staff who will be doing the evaluation.

25) On page 39 under Deliverable 10b, the RFP states "Prime Contractor must have expertise in the use of air quality models, including dispersion models such as… [AERMOD]… [CMAQ]". Will

CPUC allow subcontractors to fill this role/expertise, or must the prime contractor have this expertise?

Answer 25. The CPUC expects that the Prime Contractor has an understanding of these models and their outputs but allows the Prime Contractor to have subcontractors that have direct expertise.

26) The scoring criteria for Deliverable 15 lists the value as 10 Points however the detailed description (1.2.46) only describes how 5 of these points will be scored. How will the other 5 points be scored?

Answer 26. All 10 points for this deliverable will be attributed to 1.2.46.

27) In the Cost Sheet, can bidders provide hourly rates at the organizational title level rather than providing rates for each individual team member?

Answer 27. No, bidders must provide hourly rates for each individual team member.

28) Given the extended term of this contract, would the CPUC allow for bidders to propose an annual escalator for the hourly rates?

Answer 28. Yes, bidders may propose an annual escalator for hourly rates in the Cost Sheet (Attachment 14). On the “Task Quantification” tab, the columns for Optional Years 5 and 6 may be used to accommodate hourly rate increases.

29) Page 69 states that “each team member’s relevant supporting documentation should not exceed two pages in length” for the Minimum Qualifications Documentation. Can you confirm what you mean by “supporting documentation?” Is that the resumes?

Answer 29. Detailed resumes of all proposed team members should be submitted separately. If resumes do not fully describe the team’s compliance with the minimum qualifications, bidders can submit additional documentation not to exceed 2 pages in length for each team member.