RFP EFAA 27-06 CPRG Accelerator Research (FINAL ).docx

RFP EFAA 2027000006

CPRG ACCELERATOR RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES

RFP EFAA 2027000006

July 10, 2026 V 081222

Offeror Response Signature Page

RFP EFAA 20270000006

Accelerator Research and Best Practices

OFFERORS: See the solicitation document below for the response deadline and other response submission information and requirements.

Offerors responding to this solicitation must fill out this page in its entirety, and sign and return it with Offeror’s response. This page must bear a physical or electronic signature, as electronic signature is defined in the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act", section 24-71.3-102 (8), evincing an intent by the Offeror to be bound by its response. Failure to do so may disqualify the Offeror response.

The undersigned understands and agrees that misrepresentation made in this response and/or subsequent discussions or information presented to the State may be deemed sufficient cause for the refusal by the State to execute a Contract as a result, and that that later discovery of any omission or misrepresentation made in the solicitation response and/or subsequent discussions or information presented to the State may be grounds for the cancellation of an existing contract.

LEGAL COMPANY NAME

OFFEROR INSERT: Full Legal Company Name

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

By: Name of Person Signing for Offeror

SIGNER INFORMATION

OFFEROR INSERT: Signer’s Full Name

TITLE

OFFEROR INSERT: Title of Signer

PHONE NUMBER

OFFEROR INSERT: Signer’s Phone Number

EMAIL ADDRESS

OFFEROR INSERT: Signer’s Email Address

CONTACT FOR CLARIFICATIONS

OFFEROR INSERT: Name of Contact

TITLE

OFFEROR INSERT: Title of Contact

PHONE NUMBER

OFFEROR INSERT: Phone Number of Contact

EMAIL ADDRESS

OFFEROR INSERT: Email Address of Contact

CONTENTS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

APPENDIX B – PERSONAL SERVICES MODEL CONTRACT

APPENDIX C - VENDOR ACCESSIBILITY CHECKLIST

APPENDIX D - VENDOR DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

APPENDIX E - ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) DISCLOSURE AND USE REQUIREMENTS)

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. GENERAL INFORMATION

On behalf of the State of Colorado, the Colorado Energy Office (CEO), in partnership with the Department of Local Affairs, is issuing this Request for Proposals (RFP) to find a qualified respondent(s) to identify and leverage program design, interagency coordination, and best practices to bridge the gap between state climate/climate resilience programming and local implementation.

This solicitation is being published so that qualified Offerors may submit a proposal in accordance with the terms of this solicitation. Please review all materials, including appendices, before responding.

1.2. BACKGROUND

1.2.1. LOCAL IMPACT ACCELERATOR PROGRAM BACKGROUND

Local governments are essential to meeting statewide climate goals but often face limited staff capacity, technical expertise constraints, and fragmented access to state and federal support. The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap 2.0 (Roadmap 2.0, hereafter) envisioned a Climate Action Accelerator that could spur local governments to enact climate policies that would further greenhouse gas emission reductions beyond what the state could do on its own.

The Colorado Energy Office (CEO) created the Local Implementation, Mitigation, and Policy Action Accelerator (“Local IMPACT Accelerator” or “Accelerator”), which is funded through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Pollution Reduction Grant (CPRG). The Accelerator supports local governments with policy adoption to bolster local resilience, reduce emissions, and advance state pollution reduction goals in the Roadmap 2.0; fulfilling the goal on page 48, “Create Local Climate Action Accelerator.”

As the funding for this research and best practices effort is provided through EPA, the Awarded Offeror shall comply with all Federal Award Terms and Conditions associated with CPRG. This includes EPA General Terms and Conditions, 2 CFR 200, 2 CFR 1500, 40 CFR 33, Clean Air Act Sec 137. Additionally, the Awarded Offeror is not allowed to acquire “intangible property” as defined by 2 CFR 200.1. Examples of intangible property include property having no physical existence such as trademarks, copyrights, data (including data licenses), IP licenses, websites, software, or software subscriptions or licenses.

Lastly, the Awarded Offeror must adhere to EPA’s Quality Program, CEO’s QMP (Quality Management Plan), CEO’s QAPP or CEO’s Programmatic Quality Assurance Project Plan (PQAPP). Details noted in Section 2, Task 1.3.

1.2.2. INTERAGENCY CLIMATE ACTION COLLABORATION BACKGROUND

CEO designed the Accelerator in coordination with an Accelerator Interagency Team, including the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). This helped avoid program duplication while maximizing beneficial impacts at the local level.

CEO also coordinates with DOLA in other ways, such as coordinating with DOLA’s regional managers, borrowing some of the Accelerator program design from DOLA’s Strong Communities initiatives, and engaging with DOLA on the Colorado Resiliency Framework. The latter is led by the Colorado Resiliency Office (CRO) that sits within DOLA.

CEO is partnering with CRO (DOLA, hereafter) on this Accelerator Research and Best Practices (Best Practices, hereafter) project to align key goals and activities around climate mitigation, resilience, and climate adaptation. Broadly, CEO and DOLA may engage a range of additional state partners including but not limited to the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHSEM), the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA), and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and others. Examples of other interagency collaboration initiatives include the Colorado Resiliency Framework as well as Roadmap 2.0, the Disaster Recovery Program (and CEO’s integrated Sustainable Rebuild electrification rebates), and published studies like the Colorado Land Use Policy & Greenhouse Gas Co-benefits Study.

While the state aims to cross-promote programs and unify outreach on local government funding opportunities, coordinating diffuse state efforts remains a challenge. Each agency tries to coordinate but state liaisons, including staff (e.g., DOLA’s Regional Managers), contracted regional coordinators (see Accelerator Regional Coordinators), and trusted partners still can remain siloed in their focus. While the State’s climate website and cross-agency efforts like the Resiliency Framework have established a foundation for collaboration, consistent integration across all state programs remains a barrier to cohesive local action. An enhanced Accelerator 2.0 model could address this by identifying and leveraging program design, interagency coordination, and best practices to bridge the gap between state climate/climate resilience programming and local implementation.

1.3. OVERVIEW AND GOALS

1.3.1. OVERVIEW

At a high-level, this project makes good on the CEO's commitment to EPA in its CRPG Implementation Grant and “aims to reflect on the Accelerator, identify state-level barriers to local climate action, and design an action plan to address them.” Because the action plan will consider evaluation of the current Accelerator and ways the Accelerator could have been enhanced to be more effective, the action plan will be broadly called “Accelerator 2.0” for the purposes of this Scope of Work. Importantly, this work also incorporates some relevant concepts from CEO’s earlier CPRG Planning Grant for the state to explore “adaptation and resilience measures and policy development to support, incentivize and mandate progress towards the state’s GHG reduction goals.” The spirit of this work is reflected in the tasks of this Scope of Work which are also reflected in the seven key goals identified below.

Importantly, the Accelerator 2.0 action plan is rooted in the Accelerator policy and program design (see the Accelerator Program Guidance) but seeks to identify where efforts could be better streamlined and impact could be maximized (e.g., emissions reductions; local community involvement, coordinated planning, etc.). That evaluation should include a focus on how interagency partnerships helped lead to Accelerator successes (e.g., not duplicating work of other programs; augmenting funding, promoting projects with multiple benefits), and how additional interagency coordination could be designed to further impact.

This Accelerator 2.0 program approach should also incorporate research and best practices learned from similar state-funded programs and stakeholder engagement. This Accelerator 2.0 action plan should evaluate approaches that the State could take to best support local governments in driving high-impact local climate action policies and related project implementation

1.3.2. Goals

The goals of this project are to:

· Review CEO’s Accelerator program, the benefits of the Accelerator’s interagency collaboration, local government participation, and subrecipient policies/projects and their impact.

· Examine the landscape of Colorado state agency climate programs to identify overlapping efforts and opportunities for interagency integration on climate mitigation, adaptation and resilience programs and policies, with the purpose of enhancing outreach, participation, and cost sharing/savings as well as identifying existing misalignments or opportunities for greater alignment.

· Identify barriers to local government participation in climate action initiatives across Colorado and how to mitigate those barriers to increase participation.

· Co-facilitate local stakeholder engagement with CEO/DOLA — building from CEO/DOLA networks to convene local governments, state agency staff, and other key experts that can deepen the understanding of best practices and help flesh out the Accelerator 2.0 action plan.

· Create and define actionable strategies in a final report which includes a framework for an Accelerator 2.0 program, including possible sustainable funding mechanisms/pathways, as informed by research and stakeholder recommendations that aim to strengthen the state’s impact, increase local uptake/participation in state initiatives, and expand the implementation of local government climate action efforts across Colorado.

· Produce four (one for each Accelerator sector), short (~4 pages each), Accelerator Best Practices Sector Briefs which include the best strategies for removing local barriers to implementing climate policies/projects, pulling from local Accelerator-funded projects in each Accelerator sector (buildings, land use, transportation and waste)

· Develop an iterative and stepwise process where findings from each task (below), stakeholder input and input from DOLA/CEO are used to build upon earlier tasks, inform subsequent task deliverables and refine the final drafts

1.4. SOLE POINT OF CONTACT

1.4.1. The State’s sole point of contact for this solicitation is Tara Larwick, Procurement Specialist who may be reached via email at tara.larwick@state.co.us.

1.4.2. Because phone lines may not be consistently monitored, email is the preferred method of communication. The individual listed above is the sole point of contact for this solicitation. Initiating contact with anyone other than this individual may result in Offeror disqualification

1.5. SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES

This Schedule of Activities is for information and planning purposes only. Activities listed as “Estimated” may be subject to change depending on the needs of the State. All times are considered in Mountain Time (MT), as adjusted for daylight savings.

The date of publication for this solicitation on Colorado VSS is July 10, 2026.

i. Written inquiries must be submitted to tara.larwick@state.co.us no later than 5:00 PM July 17, 2026.

ii. The estimated date for the State’s responses to Respondents’ written inquiries to be published on Colorado VSS/Rocky Mountain BidNet is July 24, 2026.

iii. All proposals must be submitted in the method described below no later than 5:00 PM August 17, 2026.

iv. A public opening of the proposals will be held via virtual meeting on August 18, 2026, at 1:00 PM. Respondents wishing to participate should notify the Sole Point of Contact listed above for meeting information.

v. The estimated date for the publication of an Intent to Award on Colorado VSS is October 9, 2026.

1.6. START DATE

The desired Contract start date is November 9, 2026, or as soon as a State issued contract has been fully executed, whichever comes first.

1.7. ANTICIPATED CONTRACT TERM

1.7.1. The initial term of the awarded Contract is anticipated to begin upon the execution of a State issued contract and end on June 30, 2029, with possible options to renew annually for an additional 2 years. The total duration of the Contract cannot exceed five (5) years.

1.7.2. The State may extend the Contract beyond the anticipated term in accordance with the Colorado Procurement Code, and in the event that the State determines an extension is necessary.

1.7.3. The State may, within its sole discretion, choose not to exercise any option or extension term in the Contract for any reason. If the State chooses not to exercise any option or extension term, it may re-procure the goods and/or services in its sole discretion.

SECTION 2.0 MINIMUM OFFEROR’S EXPERIENCE AND PERSONNEL

The below indicate the minimum qualifications of an offeror to lead this work. Other qualifications that an Offeror can offer for this project should be detailed in the proposal

2.1. ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE

2.1.1. Two (2) years of demonstrated experience conducting policy or program research and program design for state or local government clients, particularly in climate, energy, or environmental programs

SECTION 3.0 REQUIREMENTS AND SCOPE OF WORK

The tasks in Section 3 are the specific activities designed to achieve the goals outlined in Section 1.3.2

3.1. ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

3.1.1. All work performed as a result of this solicitation must comply with all applicable provisions of §§24-85-101, et seq., C.R.S., and the Accessibility Standards for Individuals with a Disability, as established by the Office Of Information Technology pursuant to Section §24-85-103 (2.5), C.R.S. and 3) all State of Colorado technology standards related to technology accessibility and with Level AA of the most current version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), incorporated in the State of Colorado technology standards. Appendix B, Personal Services Model Contract, Section 17.U. contains further information on indemnification and compliance determination. The State may require Contractor’s compliance to be determined by a third party vendor acceptable to the State that shall attest that the Contractor’s Work Product and software is in compliance with §§24-85-101, et seq., C.R.S., and the Accessibility Standards for Individuals with a Disability as established by the Office of Information Technology pursuant to Section §24-85-103 (2.5).

3.1.2. What is required to be accessible? Applications, websites, kiosks and digital documents are required to meet the applicable provisions of §24-85-101, C.R.S. This means that digital content like PDF documents and webpages are accessible to assistive technologies like screen readers and magnification programs, and websites and applications are robust and do not prevent users of a variety of devices, browsers, and operating systems from accessing all functionality intended for use by the public or a State of Colorado employee. For more information, review OIT's accessibility resources and OIT's dedicated Accessible PDF and Documents page.

3.1.3. The final deliverables must follow Accessibility guidelines in line with HB21-1110. In order for State Agencies and local government entities to comply with HB21-1110 by July 1, 2024, State of Colorado vendors and bidders are required to demonstrate that information technology provided to the State of Colorado conforms to or addresses the most current version of the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), level AA success criteria. Awarded Offerors may do so by providing either of the following:

A. An independent, third-party evaluation from an accessibility consultancy B. A Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT). If a VPAT is used, it must use the VPAT 2.4 template, which is based on WCAG 2.1 level A/AA. The Information Technology Industry Council offers a VPAT 2.4 WCAG template (download).

3.1.4. Additional resources include:

A. Accessible Website Content: How To B. Accessible Online Content QA Checklist C. Additional How-to guides

3.2. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

The awarded Respondent will be required to submit a certificate(s) of insurance (COI) evidencing insurance coverage for the types and amounts of insurance as required by the Insurance provision in the Personal Services Model Contract terms and conditions, included in this solicitation as Appendix B, prior to execution of the Contract.

3.3. AI GOVERNANCE AND COMPLIANCE

Any use of Artificial Intelligence in the fulfillment of the resulting Purchase Order is governed by the Colorado Energy Office’s policies (for further guidance see Appendix E: Artificial Intelligence (AI) Disclosure and Use Requirements). Awarded Respondent(s) will be expected to maintain rigorous alignment with these standards to ensure the security, ethical use, and integrity of all State work products

3.4. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

The Awarded Offeror shall submit all final deliverables to the CEO by the dates established in this SOW. CEO’s Program Manager shall determine whether deliverables meet the Task requirements and approve them. The CEO will notify the Awarded Offeror and request corrections, modifications, or replacements as needed.

3.5. SCOPE OF WORK

This Scope of Work describes the deliverables sought through this RFP and the Scope of what the Awarded Offeror will be expected to deliver through the contract resulting from this RFP. The Scope of Work is intended to provide interested Offerors with sufficient basic information to submit a proposal. It is not intended to limit a proposal’s content or exclude any relevant or essential data.

These tasks and subtasks are put in sequential order, and the Awarded Offeror should generally plan to complete them sequentially except where there may be overlapping timelines. Unless otherwise specified below or allowed in writing by the CEO, the Awarded Offeror shall build into its workplan a minimum of one (1) week for the CEO to review draft deliverables (e.g., documents, spreadsheets, slides) and one (1) week for Awarded Offeror revisions.

As part of this effort, the Awarded Offeror should utilize an iterative and learning-oriented approach to developing recommendations and program concepts. This may include testing draft versions of frameworks or program concepts with CEO/DOLA and stakeholders in order to validate assumptions and refine approaches before advancing to more detailed recommendations To achieve the Accelerator Research and Best Practices objectives noted above, the Awarded Offeror shall perform the following work tasks and provide the following deliverables to the CEO, each subject to the CEO’s final approval. It is anticipated that the Awarded Offeror will begin work immediately upon successful execution of a State Contract with the CEO.

3.5.1. Task 1 – Project Startup, Coordination, & Quality Assurance

3.5.1.1. Task 1 Description/Subtasks

Task 1 seeks to establish effective project startup, coordination, decision tracking, and internal quality assurance A. Task 1.1. Kickoff Meeting and Workplan Confirmation The Awarded Offeror shall facilitate a 60-to-90-minute (virtual or in-person) kick-off meeting with the CEO, ideally within one week but no more than 12 business days of the Contract Effective Date unless otherwise allowed in writing (i.e., email) by the CEO.

B. Task 1.2 Ongoing Meetings The Awarded Offeror shall facilitate regular monthly meetings (virtual or in-person) with the CEO. If the CEO determines that meetings should be held more or less frequently, the CEO will communicate this in writing (i.e., email).

C. Task 1.3 Decision/Dependency Tracking The Awarded Offeror shall develop and maintain a project decision/dependency log to track and confirm major decisions. This should be updated and referenced during monthly meetings or at any CEO/DOLA workshopping sessions to ensure continuity of decision making, direction, scope and timelines. The CEO should be able to add to, contribute to, or otherwise edit these work products to suit its needs and document major decisions as the project advances. This should be shared with the CEO at the kickoff meeting and updated throughout the project.

D. Task 1.4 Supplemental Assurance Plan Because this effort is funded through an EPA grant, the Awarded Offeror will be expected to comply with EPA’s Quality Assurance Policy. which will include adhering to CEO’s Programmatic Quality Assurance Project Plan (PQAPP). The PQAPP outlines how CEO (and its Vendors) are permitted to perform Environmental Information Operations (EIO), such as the use of existing environmental data or the collection of limited primary environmental data. For this Scope of Work, EIO might involve activities such as using existing data to evaluate greenhouse gas reductions relative to program design, asking survey questions related to emissions data, or citing emissions reductions in various programs or documents like Roadmap 2.0. CEO does not expect significant emissions reductions analysis to be a part of this work but understands that, on a smaller scale, it could and may be helpful data to cite in order to frame-up relative program impacts to the extent emissions reductions are consistently known across initiatives that may be explored as part of this SOW. Any such analysis would have to be put on hold until approval can be obtained as noted in the following paragraphs. The CEO will provide the Awarded Offeror with a list of EIO activities covered by the CEO’s PQAPP, which include citing and referencing data such as emissions reductions or other quantified environmental co-benefits that are publicly available.

As part of adhering to the CEO’s PQAPP, the Awarded Offeror must complete and submit:

a. A Supplemental Assurance Plan (SAP) to provide the CEO with all expected data sources and reports the Awarded Offeror intends to use. The SAP is a simplified form that will ask for key points of contact (e.g., organizational chart) for staff who manage and validate data, confirms the types of environmental information that will be collected and provides the sources of data the Awarded Offeror intends to review. While not an excessive lift, this will add scope and budget to complete what is likely to amount to ~15 pages of form responses and details. The CEO will provide the Awarded Offeror with a SAP template. Any type of EIO beyond the scope of the SAP is not permissible under this Contract. The Awarded Offeror may not engage in any EIO until CEO has approved the SAP. However, the Awarded Offeror can advance work that does not include environmental information as consulted by CEO’s Program Manager and Quality Assurance Manager.

As an example, work that researches other program structures, talks with stakeholders about what works well programmatically (not related to environmental data), or otherwise does not discuss environmental information or data could start prior to an approved SAP. Work that evaluates or collects details on the program impacts as they relate to air quality and/or emissions reductions, could not begin until a SAP was completed and approved by CEO/EPA. Because SAP drafting, submittal and approval may take several months, any EIO and/or data collection should be staggered such that the larger project timeline is not on hold.

b. Because SAP drafting, submittal and approval may take several months, any EIO and/or data collection should be staggered such that the larger project timeline is not on hold.

E. Task 1.5 Annual SAP Review EPA also requires that SAPs are reviewed and updated as needed but need to be formally reviewed annually. As a result, part of this task includes an annual review of the SAP, where the Awarded Offeror documents any changes or confirms there are no changes and resubmits to the CEO for approval. If at any point during the project the Awarded Offeror plans to do more than what was originally approved in the SAP, they should pause any EIO, make the SAP change and gain approval from the CEO.

3.5.1.2. Task 1 Deliverables

A. Task 1.1 Kickoff Meeting -. At or before the kickoff meeting, the Awarded Offeror shall submit a draft agenda to the CEO. The agenda shall include, at minimum: project overview and introductions, confirmation of roles and responsibilities, review and confirmation of the project scope of work and timeline, discussion of the decision/dependency log format, and identification of any immediate questions or risks.

B. Task 1.2 Ongoing Meetings - monthly unless otherwise determined by the CEO. Awarded Offeror will provide agendas and take meeting notes for ongoing monthly meetings.

C. Task 1.3 Decision/Dependency Tracking – This log shall be shared with the CEO at the kickoff meeting and updated throughout the project.

D. Task 1.4 Supplemental Assurance Plan - Due within 60 calendar days of request by the CEO PM and submitted and approved by the CEO prior to using environmental data and updated at least annually.

E. Task 1.5 Annual SAP Review. Due annually on September 15

3.5.2. Task 2: Accelerator & Similar State Programs Review

3.5.2.1. Task 2 Description/Subtasks

Task 2 seeks to establish a baseline understanding of relevant state climate programs and the factors that influence program participation. This task will identify common barriers, participation patterns, and program design considerations in order to inform stakeholder engagement and support the development of practical recommendations for improving local government participation in State climate initiatives. Ultimately this review will inform the initial and final Gap Analysis, Accelerator 2.0 Approach, & Best Practices Report (Task 2.4) as well as the Accelerator Best Practices Sector Briefs.

B. Task 2.1 Review of Accelerator Impact, Outreach and Collaboration The Awarded Offeror shall conduct a review of the Accelerator program, its origins, goals, design, the Accelerator Interagency Team, program limitations, funding source(s), participation, who declined to participate, and the Accelerator’s impact. While much of this background is sufficient for early analysis and recommendations, some of the impact will have to be evaluated as the Accelerator subawards complete their policies and projects (which will also inform the Accelerator Best Practices Sector Briefs (see Task 5.1) and report(s) noted in Task 4.3 and 5.2.

As part of this effort the Awarded Offeror should evaluate:

a. CPRG Application and Execution -The Awarded Offeror should understand how the CEO developed its CPRG application to EPA and the steps that followed including establishing the EPA Workplan, standing up the program, and the nuances of adhering to federal requirements while building out a Climate Action Accelerator program specific to Colorado. The Awarded Offeror should be able to interview the CEO staff to fulfill this portion of the task but may also need to supplement with document review. Part of this evaluation may include understanding the pros and cons of using federal dollars for this program including reliability, one-time funding, additional work federal grants require/EPA grants (e.g., Quality Assurance), associated costs/staffing increases related to requirements, etc.

b. Accelerator Interest and Attrition - The Awarded Offeror should evaluate Accelerator participants and those that dropped-out of the process, the CEO’s initial surveys and feedback, the CEO’s regional coordinator (RCs) support and their documented outreach logs. As part of this effort the Awarded Offeror shall interview the CEO’s existing RCs review may include some short one-on-one interviews with select RCs to summarize jurisdictions that applied or dropped out, and any trends in the reasons why. The Awarded Offeror should also plan to hold up to eight 15-30 minute individual or group virtual conversations (webinar and/or phone) with jurisdictions that dropped out (e.g., Clear Creek County, Durango) to better understand why and if there are clear lessons learned that Accelerator 2.0 could benefit from.

c. Accelerator Hired Regional Support - The Awarded Offeror shall evaluate the CEO’s use of RCs across the Accelerator (e.g., there were seven Accelerator RCs) and other programs, and how they (or the CEO staff) may or may not integrated with DOLA’s regional managers (linked above), other DOLA resilience staff or other state agency outreach groups. This work should also evaluate how RCs who were associated with different groups (e.g., advocacy; municipal support) with broad existing networks may have added value and where those RCs may otherwise be used by the CEO for other programs outside of the Accelerator.

d. Accelerator Communication Pathways - The Awarded Offeror should seek to identify how the Accelerator was promoted and the most common ways the CEO promotes outreach (e.g. social media, press releases, events, websites). The Awarded Offeror should explore which methods are most impactful as it relates to Local Government including direct communication with entities and/or through groups like the Colorado Municipal League, Colorado Counties Inc, etc.

e. Accelerator Interagency Coordination - The Awarded Offeror shall seek to understand the benefits of the Accelerator Interagency Team and if there are other examples of where this approach has been taken (e.g., Strong Communities). The Awarded Offeror shall identify where there may have been less State programmatic alignment and the Accelerator might have duplicated efforts. Conversely, the Awarded Offeror should identify where the Accelerator achieved strong alignment with other programs. One example of the latter includes CDPHE allowing the CEO’s Accelerator application to serve in lieu of applicants completing a separate C3 STEPS Program application - even as the two programs funded distinct efforts, this approach is one that even intra-agency programs do not often agree to do and, in this case, brought $5.7M in separately funded C3 work to local governments; alleviating demand on Accelerator funding.

Other Accelerator related programs/initiatives include DOLA’s Neighborhood Centers, DOLAs ADU Supportive Jurisdictions, CDPHE/C3’s STEPS Program, CEO’s Energy Code Adoption and Enforcement Grant, CEO’s EV Permitting Technical Support, as well as the executive orders such as the one on strategic growth. Some of this work may also relate to the State of Colorado Climate Program Review in Task 2.2 C. Task 2.2 State of Colorado Climate Program Review The Awarded Offeror shall coordinate with CEO/DOLA on initial research to understand the following:

a. State of Colorado Climate Program Review

i. State Climate Programs - The Awarded Offeror shall conduct a cross-agency review of existing state climate programs (guided by initial CEO/DOLA meetings) to understand how they support local climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience. The Awarded Offeror shall evaluate participation rates, which program types have the most/least demand, and identify factors that influence local government participation, including program structure, eligibility requirements, application processes, staffing support (e.g. use of regional coordinators) participation incentives, implementation support, and anything else that helps create an understanding of these programs. The Awarded Offeror shall also assess various funding mechanisms (e.g. revolving loans, enterprise funds, green banks, ballot measures, enterprise funds, state cash funds, federal funds, etc) and which provide the best long-term viability. One example is DOLA’s Disaster Resilience Rebuilding Program and CEO’s Sustainable Rebuild Program, created through Colorado SB 22-206, which provided $20M to assist homeowners, businesses, local governments and communities rebuild after natural disasters.

ii. State Hired and Staffed Regional Support - Research cross-agency coordination across staff and RCs to identify potential efficiencies through greater or shared communications, staff, and contractors. A primary focus will be evaluating whether current climate information is too voluminous for local governments to navigate, and if simplified outreach strategies would boost participation. Initially this may be more heavily informed by CEO/DOLA input/staff interviews and some limited targeted RC/participant interviews to inform a high-level understanding of the State perspective on what’s working well, where things could be improved and what questions should be fleshed out during stakeholder engagement. The Awarded Offeror will expand on this through some initial, limited stakeholdering with RCs and Accelerator local government contacts (noted in Task 2.1), through lessons learned from other states (see task 2.3) and through more significant stakeholdering (see Task 3).

iii. State Agency Communication Pathways - The Awarded Offeror should identify the primary means of communication of climate programs across CEO, DOLA and other key agencies including the use of the State’s climate page. The Awarded Offeror should seek to determine which methods that are most effective for local governments, which are least effective, and any potential opportunities to explore new approaches or coordinate or streamline approaches. This effort should include identifying if the CEO and/or DOLA can produce website hits/clicks or other information that might show how frequently documents, webpages, grant criteria, or similar resources are being accessed generally and by local governments specifically.

iv. State Interagency Climate Coordination - The Awarded Offeror shall identify the breadth and types of climate information the state is trying to communicate. This should include items such as major plans, data, and grant opportunities - exploring which spur local climate action and the preferred ways to communicate each (if they are not the same). This may, to some extent, be informed by conversations with CEO/DOLA related to practical experience, web hits, document downloads, etc. In exploring how to streamline communications, the Awarded Offeror should explore if the information to share is too voluminous for any one agency (or local government) to understand at a glance and any ideas for simplifying outreach such that a suite of information could be more easily provided to local governments who are wanting to implement climate/resilience actions.

At a high level this evaluation should capture the State perspective and engagement data related to what’s working well and where the state and Awarded Offeror may see opportunities for improvement. The Awarded Offeror will expand on this through some initial, limited stakeholdering with RCs and Accelerator contacts (noted above), through lessons learned from other states (see task 2.3) and through more significant stakeholdering (see Task 3) D. Task 2.3 Peer State Climate Program Review The Awarded Offeror shall conduct a targeted review of comparable programs in at least five peer states that support climate action through mitigation, adaptation, resilience, or accelerator-style local government support programs, including New York’s Clean Energy Communities Program, Massachusetts's Green Communities Grants Program, and the Maine Community Resilience Partnership.

The purpose of the peer state review is to identify program design approaches, messaging (see “program framing” in Task 2.4), governance structures, and participation strategies to identify potential improvements to Colorado’s approach and ultimately maximize impact through reduced confusion and improved participation from local governments.

While this task should be completed within three months, CEO/DOLA will consider extensions that provide added value, provided the Awarded Offeror prioritizes early state selection, preliminary research and outreach.

E. Task 2.4 Initial Gap Analysis, Accelerator 2.0 Approach, & Best Practices Report Based on earlier tasks and discussions with CEO/DOLA, the Awarded Offeror shall develop an initial Gap Analysis, Accelerator 2.0 Approach, & Best Practices Report, which will serve as a foundational working draft that will be iteratively expanded through subsequent tasks to become the final report. This initial report should synthesize early findings from Tasks 2.1-2.3, determine priority hypotheses and key questions to inform the next phase of stakeholder engagement, and identify 3-4 potential approaches for addressing barriers to local government participation.

The report must include, but is not limited to, the following.

i. Accelerator Program Review Summary: A summary of the review of the Accelerator Program (see Task 2.1), including program interest and attrition, the use of regional coordinators, communication pathways, and interagency coordination to identify potential gaps and improvements

ii. Colorado State Climate Program Summary: A summary of existing Colorado programs geared toward local governments, including but not limited to, how programs are conceived (e.g. state funding, federal grants, enterprise funds, etc), structured, and designed, stakeholder engagement approaches, their intended outcomes, funding mechanisms, and how local governments are incentivized or supported. As part of this summary, the Awarded Offeror shall produce a Resource Navigation Roadmap and a Summary of Barriers to participation (see the following bullets below). Findings and recommendations from this effort should identify ways improved design could support easier implementation, improved participation rates, cross-agency promotion, etc. This work could broadly consider "programs" to be those that the state offers to provide financial support, technical support, project support or similar up to and including initiatives that aim to streamline this work such as DOLA’s funding navigator or even the HB 25-1198 effort for DOLA to create Regional Roundtables which has similar goals (integrated planning; bringing together funding resources) but is a divergent process from other state approaches

iii. Resource Navigation Roadmap - conceptually similar to a customer journey map - showing how local governments engage with the State climate program (e.g., State climate webpage) and get funding or support for them, navigate, and sequence State climate programs (e.g., DOLA’s funding navigator; individual agency/program webpages). This effort should heavily lean on CEO/DOLA input including, where possible, web page hits (information the State may have) as well as feedback from local governments, staff and RCs. This review can help identify existing complexities (what may/may not be working well) and where certain resources and shared intake processes may be able to be improved to reduce any confusion or other barriers to entry for local governments. It can also help identify the ways the State is working to push climate/resilience messages, programs and any existing coordination that is occurring (e.g., the creation of the State’s climate page; Resiliency Framework updates; Accelerator; RCs). Testing and enhancing the Awarded Offeror’s initial understanding through the Task 3 stakeholdering will be crucial

iv. A Summary of Barriers: Program participation barriers identified through program reviews and interviews with CEO, DOLA, and Regional Coordinators. Among other things, this should include evaluating:

1. Regional Participation Trends: identifying geographic gaps or areas of low uptake

2. Capacity & Timing: how local government bandwidth and project timing may impact the ability to participate

3. Structural barriers: program design factors such as eligibility criteria and voluntary vs mandatory requirements

4. Political & Social Factors: challenges related to local political feasibility, support from elected officials, and/or community buy-in

5. State-level Barriers: how lack of program clarity, program design, and interagency coordination in addition to the volume of state programs and plans (e.g., over 54 state planning documents noted in Colorado's Outdoor Strategy) create confusion for local governments

v. Peer State Climate Program Summary: The Awarded Offeror will provide a comprehensive evaluation of peer state programs, focusing on governance, funding, and messaging to inform Colorado’s "Accelerator 2.0" design. More specifically, this analysis shall include:

1. Programmatic Framework: A summary of how the program was designed, program goals, organizational structures, and success metrics

2. Staffing & Support Models: A detailed breakdown of personnel structures, including the specific number and roles of staff and Regional Coordinators (RCs)

3. Stakeholder Engagement Approaches: How stakeholders were engaged and how local governments were incentivized to participate

4. Fiscal Sustainability: An analysis of program budgets, identifying specific funding mechanisms and whether sources are one-time or ongoing

5. Geographic Reach: A review of participation rates across diverse regions, city sizes, and political landscapes to identify patterns of engagement

6. Messaging Strategies: An evaluation of how programs use specific terminology (e.g., “resilience” vs. “climate”) to navigate political spectrums, including how these strategies have evolved to identify the framing and words maximize buy-in (e.g., green, resilience, climate, mitigation, adaptation, local, community). For example, if peer States like New York prioritize terms like “resilience,” more than “climate” to work better across political spectrums it would be helpful for CEO/DOLA to understand this and identify terms to consider in stakeholder workshops (e.g., Task 3)

7. Holistic Climate Programming: The degree to which these programs currently integrate climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience, including any planned initiatives to further align them

8. Interagency Integration: An assessment of how these programs function as a "central thread" across state government, including the use of shared communications and cross-agency resource alignment

9. Application to Colorado: Strategic recommendations on how identified messaging and structural approaches might resonate across Colorado’s unique regions to spur local action

vi. Hypotheses and Key Questions: A list of hypotheses and key questions to explore and test during stakeholder engagement

vii. Accelerator 2.0 Approaches: An outline of 3-5 potential approaches (e.g., pathways; scenarios) for increasing local government participation in state climate programs F. Task 2.5 Staff Workshop & Draft Slides The Awarded Offeror shall present the Initial Gap Analysis, Draft Accelerator 2.0 Approach, & Best Practices Report (using slides) from Task 2.4 to the CEO and partner staff, including the 3-5 potential approaches/pathways for increasing local government participation in state climate programs. These approaches should represent robust, thoughtful and actionable approaches (e.g., like the Accelerator approach or New York’s Clean Energy Communities Program approach) and may include elements that stack to create an impactful program but should not simply be a list of those elements.

CEO, DOLA and any partner staff will then determine which subset (or combination) of the initial 3-5 approaches to move forward with (ideally 2-3). These will be presented to stakeholders for input during Phase 1 engagement. The Awarded Offeror shall also create a concept slide deck from the final 2-3 selected approaches for workshopping with stakeholders in the subsequent Phase 1 Engagement & Synthesis effort.

3.5.2.2. Task 2 Deliverables

A. 2.1 Review of Accelerator Impact, Collaboration, and Outreach - Within three months of the Contract Effective Date (unless otherwise allowed by the CEO in writing) B. 2.2 State of Colorado Climate Program Review - Within three months of the Contract Effective Date(unless otherwise allowed by the CEO in writing) C. 2.3 Peer State Climate Program Review - Within three months of the Contract Effective Date (unless otherwise allowed by the CEO in writing).

D. 2.4 Initial Gap Analysis, Accelerator 2.0 Approach, & Best Practices Report - Within four months of the Contract Effective Date (unless otherwise allowed by the CEO in writing) E. 2.5 Staff Workshop & Draft Slides- Within five months of the Contract Effective Date(unless otherwise allowed by the CEO in writing)

3.5.3. Task 3: Phase 1 Engagement & Synthesis

3.5.3.1. Task 3 Description and Subtasks

Purpose: Gather structured input on hypotheses, priority questions, and the 2-3 potential approaches/pathways for increasing local government participation in state climate programs identified in Task 2. Determine participation barriers and understand program design preferences for future local government climate programming, or an “Accelerator 2.0”, with representation across geography, capacity, and program categories A. Task 3.1 Engagement Plan, Stakeholder Map, and Slide Deck

a. The Awarded Offeror shall develop an engagement plan identifying target groups informed by CEO/DOLA discussions. From this, the Awarded Offeror should develop a list of desired priority focus group participants (including organizations, agencies and/or specific stakeholders (e.g., Stakeholder Map) and a strategy for workshopping approaches with stakeholders for feedback and iteration. The workshop strategy should include

i. the format (e.g., online; in-person; hybrid),

ii. recruitment strategy (understanding CEO/DOLA can help substantially here),

iii. the schedule, and

iv. the target audience (e.g., state agencies, local governments, and related entities).

b. The Awarded Offeror should plan to support any day-of facilitation (in-person or online), document sharing, polling of opinions, breakout rooms (in-person or virtual), and note taking to capture the critical feedback and recommendations from these events.

c. The Awarded Offeror should also plan to support slide development as noted in specific tasks in the scope. CEO/DOLA/State staff also plan to provide supplemental support at these events; co-presenting, helping develop materials and helping lead discussions.

d. Engagement events may utilize a mix of in-person, online and/or hybrid events. Some in-person events in the Denver/Denver area would be advantageous and seek to provide balanced and engaged participation. The Awarded Offeror should budget at least one West Slope event to best serve communities where online formats and/or internet are less preferred or practical. Each event is envisioned to be between 1.5 - 4 hours. These can be a mix of in person, hybrid and online events. In-person events would generally be assumed to be in the Metro Denver area. However, the event length would make a strategic West Slope event (e.g., Grand Junction or similar) possible to perform as an out and back without expending too much budget on travel. Costs for any engagement activities will need to comply with all Federal Award Terms and Conditions associated with CPRG and any limitations will need to be discussed prior to planning to identify what costs are allowable by EPA/through this grant

e. The Awarded Offeror shall work with CEO/DOLA to ensure a broad, representative spectrum of stakeholders are engaged (e.g., east/west slope; DOLA regions, jurisdiction size, capacity levels, and income). In short, this effort seeks to engage a broad range of (primarily local government) stakeholders that help represent each of the 64 counties or their respective regions of the state. This will help the Awarded Offeror and CEO/DOLA better understand which approaches have more universal favor and which are least favored in order to create a minimum viable product for Accelerator 2.0

f. Beyond the Phase 1 Engagement Plan, this effort shall also provide the CEO and DOLA with a final slide deck that builds upon the slides from Task 2.5 and that will be used in Task 3.2. The Awarded Offeror will meet with CEO/DOLA to discuss the final slide deck and incorporate any edits or additions. The final slide deck will include all slides necessary to help CEO/DOLA engage stakeholders, provide context and assist with visualizing the final 2-3 concepts discussed in Task 2 B. Task 3.2 Design & Conduct Stakeholder Engagement Sessions

a. The Awarded Offeror shall coordinate with CEO/DOLA on the best format for a series of engagement sessions (e.g., listening session, roundtable, breakout rooms, etc).

b. CEO/DOLA will need to review, approve and edit content prior to the meeting. This will require the Awarded Offeror to plan enough time to incorporate any CEO/DOLA edits prior to the meeting.

c. After determining the best engagement approach, the Awarded Offeror should begin engaging stakeholders, including:

i. Accelerator awardees and…