RFP 25-0146 Solar for All Q and A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RFP for Solar for All Program Planning Support
- Solicitation number
- RFP-761-250000000146-2
- Issued by
- Michigan
About this file
This document is a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) for Solar for All (SFA) program planning services. The RFP outlines requirements for a contractor to provide comprehensive planning support, including stakeholder engagement, program design, financial strategy development, and workforce planning. The selected contractor will also be expected to provide 3-6 months of direct support to the third-party administrator(s) once they are onboarded.
Regarding pricing, EGLE is seeking fixed-fee pricing for each scope requirement, with the flexibility to consider hourly rate cards or other pricing structures for the post-planning support under Requirement 5. EGLE has not provided a specific budget estimate for this effort but has indicated there is a not-to-exceed amount. The selected contractor for the planning services may be eligible to bid on the subsequent RFP for the third-party administrator role, provided there is no conflict of interest.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP 250000000146 Solar for All Program Planning Support.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question # | Document and Section | Page # | Bidder Question | EGLE Response |
| 1 | Vendor Questions Worksheet | 13 | Can you clarify, is the selected Contractor (prime) of this RFP allowed to respond to a future RFP for MISFA third-party Administrator? | The selected contractor may respond to the MISFA third party administrator RFP only if there is no conflict of interest. For example, the selected planning contractor cannot write the third party administrator RFP or assist in the selection process if the contractor desires to respond to the third party administration RFP. |
| 2 | Vendor Questions Worksheet | 13 | If an Organization is a subcontractor in a Contractor Team and the Organization’s scope is limited to the delivery of Requirements 1-3 only, are they conflicted out from responding to a future RFP for MISFA third-party Administrator? | No. |
| 3 | Vendor Questions Worksheet | 13 | Can you clarify if EGLE foresees a conflict of interest for the future MISFA third-party Administrator to provide technical assistance, planning, design, vendor selection, vendor management or other consulting workforce training programs in solar and/or storage projects in the state of Michigan? i.e. would they be conflicted out from providing these services in the state while serving the role of Administrator? | Yes, EGLE foresees a potential conflict of interest. Further information would be required to determine if there is a conflict of interest. |
| 4 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 44 | Can you please elaborate on the onboarding timeline mentioned under requirement 1? Does this refer to third-party administrator(s) onboarding? | Requirement 1 onboarding refers to the onboarding of contractor selected from this current planning RFP, not third-party administrator(s) onboarding. |
| 5 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 44 | Did EGLE have a consultant that helped write the state's application for the SFA funds? If so, are they eligible to bid on the planning RFP? | Any consultant hired to write the State’s application for SFA funds is eligible to bid on the planning RFP if the consultant meets all other eligibility criteria. |
| 6 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 44 | Does the approved Solar for All Workplan have a specific amount set aside for program planning? | The MI Solar for All workplan has been revised to reflect the lower award amount and is under review. It has not yet been approved by the U.S. EPA. |
| 7 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 45 | Please elaborate on the following statement: “Contractor will be regularly engaged with stakeholder groups throughout the entire planning period”. Does this mean that the contractor is expected to have continued presence throughout the planning phase (i.e. through Dec 2025), or if the deliverables are completed sooner, there is no need for continued presence? (i.e. planning project can conclude while waiting for 3rd party administrator) | If planning deliverables are completed sooner than December 2025, the contractor may not need to have a continued presence with stakeholder groups through December 2025. This will be decided during the planning period. |
| 8 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 45 | The RFP language suggests that the chosen contractor would be responsible for the stakeholder engagement activities, including directly conducting the engagement activities. Would the EGLE OCE be receptive to responses in which the Contractor is responsible for Stakeholder Engagement strategy, preparation, and engagement support, but for the MISFA program team (e.g., EGLE OCE resources or other actively involved stakeholders) to implement and deliver? | Yes, depending on what engagement support entails. |
| 9 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 46 | Does EGLE have a specific budget allocated for compensation of CBOs for their participation and input into program design? If so, would EGLE be willing to share the budget? | The revised budget for the MI Solar for All program is under review with the U.S. EPA and has not yet been approved. As such, EGLE will not share budget allocations at this time. |
| 10 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 46 | The RFP states that “Upon receiving approval from the OCE, Contractor will implement and manage the CBO (community benefits org.) compensation process, including the disbursement and reporting of funds.” Can the State please provide additional information for this activity? | EGLE intends to compensate CBOs for participation in engagement activities. The Contractor will design, implement, and manage the compensation process. |
| 11 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 46 | There are two components here - 30 days of research and review and then ongoing research throughout the planning period. There are no deliverables related to the ongoing research - how does EGLE want this information presented, stored, and accessed throughout the planning period? | This will be determined with the selected contractor. |
| 12 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 47 | Is there an expectation of number of in-person vs virtual sessions? Are there any city or town events and in what format? | During the planning period, EGLE expects the planning consultant to recommend the number, type, and formats of engagement sessions based on best practices to achieve meaningful engagement to inform the design of the MI Solar for All program. |
| 13 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 47 | For financial strategies, the RFP mentions designing strategies for a pilot program, as well as other programs. Does OCE have an expectation for when the pilot will be conducted, including target for first investments to be deployed, and target pilot end date for it to transition to longer term strategies? | No. |
| 14 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 48 | Under the "Workforce" section, the RFP mentions the "Contractor will develop and recommend hiring criteria..." Does OCE intend to directly hire developers for the implementation of this program? Or are these criteria intended to be made publicly available to Michigan developers and contractors who wish to participate in the program? | The criteria are intended to be made publicly available to entities wishing to participate in the program. |
| 15 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 48 | Under the "Workforce" section, the RFP mentions the "Contractor will establish and recommend a certified contractor pool..." Can OCE clarify if it will provide management direction on the criteria to establish the contractor pool and make final decisions on the inclusion of contractors to such pool? | The Contractor is expected to utilize best practices in recommending criteria for establishing the contractor pool. OCE will make final decisions regarding the criteria utilized. The planning contractor will not make final decisions on the inclusion of contractors in the certified contractor pool. |
| 16 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 48 | Can EGLE provide any additional details on what the "solar market sector hub" is intended to achieve? | The solar market ‘sector hub’ will align technician training programs by fostering collaboration among solar industry employers, vocational programs, and regulatory bodies. This hub will keep training programs up to date with the evolving needs of the solar market. |
| 17 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 48 | How will funding flow from EGLE to CBOs - does this money flow through the program manager/contractor? | EGLE intends to compensate CBOs for participation in engagement activities. The Contractor will design, implement, and manage the compensation process. |
| 18 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 48 | Does the contractor need to consider ancillary needs such as real-time translation and/or accessibility consideration for the delivery of in-person stakeholder engagement workshops? | Yes, if appropriate. |
| 19 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 48 | In Michigan EGLE’s Solar for All (SFA) application to EPA in October 2023, the state applied for the maximum award of $250 million. This was roughly apportioned out as to 60% ($150,000,000) for financial assistance allocation for residential and community solar, 15% ($37,500,000) for enabling upgrades, and 25% ($62,500,000) for program deployment, technical assistance, and administration. The EPA awarded Michigan $156,120,000. Will the apportionment of these awarded funds match those in Michigan’s application ($93,672,000 for financial assistance allocation for residential and community solar; $23,418,000 for enabling upgrades; and $39,030,000 for program deployment, technical assistance, and administration)? | The proposed budget for the MI Solar for All program has been adjusted to reflect the lower award amount than requested and is under review by the U.S. EPA. Allocations of award funds to program categories are unknown at this time. |
| 20 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 48 | If so, how does EGLE expect a change in apportionment of funding to affect potential program design or implementation? | EGLE expects to do less than originally proposed due to the lower award amount than requested. The proposed budget for the MI Solar for All program has been adjusted to reflect the lower award amount than requested and is under review by the U.S. EPA. Allocations of award funds to program categories are unknown at this time. |
| 21 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 48 | Should the projected outputs and outcomes as detailed in Michigan’s application be scaled down by roughly a factor of one-third to reflect the reduced amount of the final award compared to what was requested in the application? | Not necessarily. The proposed budget for the MI Solar for All program has been adjusted to reflect the lower award amount than requested and is under review by the U.S. EPA. Allocations of award funds to program categories are unknown at this time. |
| 22 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 48 | For Requirement 3 (Program design support), must the financial program design components fall within the broad categories outlined in the application : direct grants, lease-to-own models, and low-cost loans for residential solar (single family tenant, single family owner, and multifamily tenant) and community serving residential solar (single family tenant, single family owner, and multifamily tenant), or can the contractor propose additional or alternative financial design strategies? | Additional or alternative financial design strategies may be proposed. |
| 23 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 48 | What is the anticipated size and financial support for the pilot financial strategies? Will these pilot financial strategies be targeted to all eligible stakeholder groups (single family owners/renters, multifamily owner/renters, community solar)? | This will be determined during the planning period. |
| 24 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 48 | Are the anticipated financial program design categories for solar-PV expected to be applicable to the associated storage component? | This will be determined during the planning period. |
| 25 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 48 | Does ELGE permit and expect a contractor to use pre-screening tools such as Google’s Project Sunroof, or other open-AI enabled programs to develop, design, and monitor programs savings and criteria? | This will be determined during the planning period. |
| 26 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 48 | For Requirement 3, criteria development, is the Contractor expected to develop a model to calculate the expected savings and GHG reductions from eligible participants? | EGLE/OCE expects the contractor to provide best practices, make recommendations, and provide support in the creation or selection of the model to calculate expected savings and GHG reductions from eligible participants. |
| 27 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 50 | Does EGLE expect the contractor to translate materials and/or consider ADA compliance as part of final reports/deliverables? | ADA compliance, in addition to recommendations on materials that should be translated, should be considered as part of final reports/deliverables. |
| 28 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 50 | Pilot financial strategies: When does EGLE plan to pilot the financial strategies (presumably after the third-party administrator is onboarded)? | This will be determined during the planning period. |
| 29 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 1.1 General Requirements | 53 | Question regarding this statement “Contractor will provide 3-6 months of direct support to the third-party. administrator(s), at which time the “hand-off period” will conclude.” Which activities are expected to be managed by the contractor for the remaining 6 months? | This will be determined during the planning period. Any activities in the remaining six months will be within the scope of work. |
| 30 | Schedule A: Statement of Work Section 4.1 Price Term | 57 | Our interpretation of the "Price Term" (described as, "Pricing is firm for the entire length of the Contract") and the pricing schedule is that OCE requests fixed fee pricing for each scope requirements. Is this interpretation accurate? Given the activities and scope for Requirement 5 to support post-planning would largely be informed by the outputs from Requirements 1 - 4, would OCE be open to an hourly rate card or other form of pricing for Requirement 5? | Yes. |
| 31 | Schedule B: Pricing | 61 | Will EGLE allow fully loaded rates under this contract, including fringe, indirect, overhead and any other customary fees in delivering the required services? Any specific terms respondents should be aware of? | Pricing for this RFP must be submitted using the table in Schedule B, however, bidders may submit supporting documentation as well. |
| 32 | Schedule B: Pricing | 61 | Schedule B asks Offerors to submit Requirement pricing that is broken down by “Staffing and Contractual”, “Supplies and Materials” and “Travel” line items. However, some professional services firms use commercial pricing methodologies that cannot be broken out into these categories of cost. Would the State allow Offerors to provide Requirements pricing that is based on their commercial pricing practices, provided that the Offeror shows enough detail to the State on the types of resources that are included the price, as well as an accompanying narrative to provide any additional detail?” | Pricing for this RFP must be submitted using the table in Schedule B, however, bidders may submit supporting documentation as well. |
| 33 | Schedule B: Pricing | 61 | Can the State provide a budget estimate for this effort? | No. |
| 34 | Schedule B: Pricing | 61 | Is there an expected budget amount or not-to-exceed for the services requested under this RFP? | Yes. |
| 35 | Schedule B: Pricing | 61 | The RFP requests offerors to provide, amongst other detail, annual salary/wage details, travel, and expenses. Requiring a breakdown of direct costs (salaries/wages) is generally uncommon and unnecessary for fixed-price commercial services. Many qualified firms, including small businesses, may lack the government-certified accounting systems needed to provide this cost detail, which is typically required only for cost-reimbursable contracts. Since the resultant contract structure is to be structured by a fixed-price by deliverable, will the State consider removing this requirement? | No. |
| 36 | N/A | N/A | Will the awarded vendor of this RFP be precluded from supporting the implementation of the Solar for All (SFA) grant? | The selected contractor may respond to the MISFA third party administrator RFP only if there is no conflict of interest. For example, the selected planning contractor cannot write the third party administrator RFP or assist in the selection process if the contractor desires to respond to the third party administration RFP. |
| 37 | N/A | N/A | Will OCE only consider responses that address the full scope of services listed in the RFP? Or will OCE consider contractors for partial awards on select scopes of services? | Consideration will be given to proposals with select or partial scopes of services, not just to proposals with the full scope of services listed in the RFP. |
| 38 | N/A | N/A | If the Michigan State Legislature fails to pass enabling legislation for community distributed solar, does EGLE anticipate this will significantly impact its goals to serve LIDAC consumers through community solar, or is it believed there is sufficient capacity and LIDAC representation within existing utility-owned distributed generation programs to meet these goals in the absence of enabling legislation? Alternatively, is this something EGLE anticipates will need to be analyzed during the planning period in the event enabling legislation does not pass. | The MI Solar for All program intends to meet its programmatic goals by working within the existing framework for community distributed solar. |
| 39 | N/A | N/A | Will the relative proportions for spending targets (financial assistance vs. technical assistance, rooftop vs community solar, etc.) stated in EGLE's Solar For All application remain as stated in the application, or will there be any significant adjustments to the relative proportions in light of the awarded dollar amount being reduced from the amount requested? | The proposed budget for the MI Solar for All program has been adjusted to reflect the lower award amount than requested and is under review by the U.S. EPA. Allocations of award funds to program categories are unknown at this time. |
| 40 | N/A | N/A | Can you please confirm whether the winning vendor for this planning support proposal would be precluded from bidding on the follow-on RFP for Third-Party administration? Requirement r: Support in solicitation and selection of third-party administrator(s) seems to imply that you are expecting two separate vendors for these projects. | The selected contractor may respond to the MISFA third party administrator RFP only if there is no conflict of interest. For example, the selected planning contractor cannot write the third party administrator RFP or assist in the selection process if the contractor desires to respond to the third party administration RFP. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .