Solar RFP QA_Final.pdf

Level 3 - Restricted

Questions and Answers

Solar RFP

1. Question: Subject is Codebase: For the existing codebase: 1. Does a current data dictionary exist for the database? 2. Does an application architecture document exist for the current codebase? 3. Does a system application manual exist for the current codebase? 4. Does a system operations manual exist for the current codebase? 5. Which database is used in this Mendix implementation?

Answers:

1. No

2. No

3. No

4. No

5. PostgreSQL

2. Question: Section 3.1.1.1r: Requires the offeror “Provide current certification(s) for at least 1 individual that holds a Mendix low-code application development platform.” There are 4 levels of Mendix certification that Mendix offers, and many third-party developers offer various levels of certification. Which specific levels of certification from which provider meet this requirement? Keep in mind that some of these levels require years of Mendix experience, which would automatically exclude anyone in the industry but the incumbent from bidding.

Answer: Proposer must provide current certifications from the Mendix Academy for at least one individual on Proposer’s proposed team. The possible Mendix Academy certifications include: “rapid,” “Intermediate,” “Advanced,” or “Expert” developer.

3. Question: Subject: Energy Trust of Oregon: As a ratepayer funded entity, will Energy Trust of Oregon be equally available to any bidder to provide the same services they are providing now, or are they allowed to be exclusively a part of the incumbent? proposal?

Answer: It is up to Energy trust how or if they participate in a Proposal.

4. Question: Subject: Utility Data exchange: Do all of the utilities have an application program interface (API) that is used to share information between the program and the utilities? If so, can you provide the API guides under NDA to bidders? If not, how is data exchanged between the utilities and the program? What data is exchanged between the utilities and the program?

Answer:

1. No

2. N/A

3. Data is exchanged between PA and utilities via encrypted csv files through secure SFTP servers.

4. The data includes: project operational status, participant subscription status, participant billing, unsubscribed power, unbillable energy, participant status confirmation, project generation, participant consumption, participant billing confirmation, actual participant fee collections, unsubscribed power purchase cost, and unbillable cost.

5. Question: Subject Security: Section 3.1.1.2 requires the offeror to “Provide companywide current certifications for data security, software development and hosting, and data management”. 1. Does SOC-II certification meet this requirement? 2. If the answer to the above is no, what additional certifications do meet this requirement?

Answer:

1. Yes, a SOC-II certification meets this requirement.

2. Many other certifications may meet the requirement, including but not limited to:

a ISO 27001 certification.

6. Question: Subject: Website/Phone: Are the program website, URL, and phone numbers owned by the PUC and will they be transferred to the new Program Administrator?

Answer: No. However, the program website files and URL will be transferred to a new PA, but the phone numbers will not be transferred.

7. Question: Subject: Knowledge Base: Does the incumbent program administrator use a knowledge base software solution to store internal program procedures and program information for program staff? If so: 1. What knowledge base software is used? 2. Will this knowledge base be provided to the incoming program administrator? If not: 1. What is used to record internal program administration procedures? 2. Will this be provided to the incoming program administrator?

Answer: 1. Unknown; 2. Unknown; 1. Unknown; 2. Unknown.

8. Question: Subject: Other Software: Is there any other software the existing program administrator uses for program administration such as Salesforce, Sharepoint, Quickbooks, etc? If so: 1. Which other software is used? 2. What is it used for? 3. Will the data from that software be provided to the incoming program administrator?

Answer:

1. The current PA uses Sharepoint.

2. OPUC has shared data and files with the PA through its Sharepoint site.

3. Relevant data will be shared with a new PA.

9. Question: Subject: Bank Accounts: Are there any bank accounts used as part of the program? If so: 1. What is/are the bank accounts used for? 2. Will ownership of the bank account be transferred to the incoming program administrator? 3. Is the program administrator allowed to earn interest on funds in those bank accounts?

Answer:

1. The current PA uses bank accounts under its control to manage funds received from utilities and projects and to transfer funds to CSP projects.

2. Those bank accounts will not be able to be transferred to a new PA, and a new PA will be required to establish different back accounts.

3. The funds are not State funds, so the agency has no position.

10. Question: Subject: Program Documents: Will editable versions of all program documents be provided to the incoming program administrator? For example, Word or Excel versions of all pdfs, unflattened graphics.

Answer: Program documents will be provided to a new PA in editable formats.

11. Question: subject Community Energy Project: Is the Low-Income Facilitator, Community Energy Project, a subcontractor to the current Program Administrator under this contract who would need to be replaced if a new Program Administrator is selected?

Answer: Community Energy Project is a subcontractor to the current PA. The LIF is an optional service under this RFP. A new PA controls who it subcontracts with.

12. Question: Subject: Energy Trust of Oregon: Please explain the current contractual role of Energy Trust of Oregon in this program. Are they a subcontractor to the current Program Administrator under this contract who would need to be replaced if a new Program Administrator was selected?

Answer: Energy Trust of Oregon is a subcontractor to the current PA. A new PA controls who it subcontracts with.

13. Question: Subject: Transition: Is the current Program Administrator contractually obligated to provide full assistance in transitioning the program to a new Program Administrator?

Answer: Yes

14. Question: Subject: Marketing: Please detail the specific marketing that is expected under Task 1, item 7 in the statement of work.

Answer: A new PA will maintain the Program website, including ensuring information and data on the site are updated as needed and accessible to current and future participants and other stakeholders. Tasks related to Marketing will be negotiated with the successful proposer.

15. Question: Subject: Marketing: Is all marketing collateral owned by the PUC and will it be transferred to the new Program Administrator?

Answer: Yes

16. Question: Subject: Award Timing: What is the expected award date of the contract?

Answer: Section 1.2 of the RFP has a schedule of events known at this time.

17. Question: Subject: Program Fee: A “program fee” of $.85 per kWac is collected. 1. Is this program fee collected and kept by the Program Administrator as part of their compensation, and is it separate from any payment for services by the PUC? If the answer to that question is yes: 1. What was the amount in “program administrator fee” program fees collected in calendar year 2024? 2. At what point in the program transition will these program fees be remitted to and the property of the incoming program administrator? 3. Are the “program administrator fee” program fees considered to belong to the “program administrator” immediately upon collection, or are they expected to perform some task(s) before they belong to them? a. If a task or tasks are required, what are those tasks and what is the deliverable(s) that trigger the change in ownership of the funds? 4. Does the PUC consider the “program administrator fees” to be state funds? 5. Are the “program administrator fees” reflected on the PUC accounting books?

Answers:

1. $296,567.04

2 & 3. Program Administrator fees are collected monthly by utilities from Program participants and remit the fees monthly to the current PA. Once remitted to the PA, the PA counts the fees as revenue it owns.

4. No.

5. No.

18. Question: Subject: Annual view process: Please explain the annual review, reconciliation and external audit noted in task 1, item 7. Is the program administrator expected to identify an external program auditor and pay them for the annual audit (which could be considered a conflict of interest), or rather will the program administrator be expected to submit to an annual external audit by an auditor identified and funded by the PUC?

Answer: Tasks related to the annual review will be negotiated with the successful proposer.

19. Question: Subject: CSP Participants: Do participants currently access the CSP platform directly? If so, what functions do they perform on the platform? Will participants need to access the CSP platform under a new program administrator?

Answer: No.

20. Question: Subject: CSP Participants: Task 2.3 indicates that the CSP Platform must “continue” to include: “Direct participant enrollment tool that provides a centralized online platform for participants to directly apply to enroll and to participate in a project”. Currently, the Oregon CSP website directs potential participants to the websites of the subscription managers enrolling participants in the three utility territories. Is the ability for participants to enroll directly on a centralized online platform a new requirement? If so, how does it change the current participant enrollment flow? If not, how does a participant enroll on the current CSP platform?

Answer: See RFP amendment 1.

21. Question: Subject: Participation verification: Please explain the mechanism, if any, by which the current program administrator cross-references participant information in the CSP portal with participant information from the three participating utilities to verify that information. Will this continue to be within the scope of work for a new program administrator?

Answer: The current PA uses the existing CSP Platform and data transfer processes with the three participating utilities to verify Program participants. The proposer will need to implement their own mechanism in coordination with the utilities.

22. Question: Subject: Marketing: Which channels/forms of marketing are currently in use with the CSP? Would a new program administrator be expected to continue marketing through all of these channels/forms, or will there be a process of determining which channels should be continued with?

See Answer to Question #13.

23. Question: Subject: Mendix: Assuming Mendix is required: 1. Will the selected contractor be required to purchase licenses for Mendix? 2. How many and what level of licenses must be purchased? 3. Is the contractor responsible for paying for these licenses and any other fees? 4. Where is the Mendix application currently hosted? 5. Is the contractor responsible for paying Mendix hosting fees? 6. What version of Mendix is currently in use? 7. Does the PUC own the Mendix codebase and will it be provided to the new program administrator? 8.

Can a copy of the current codebase be provided to bidders under an NDA in order to determine the amount of technical debt it contains prior to bidding? 9. When was the codebase last tested by a third-party penetration testing firm? What were the results of the penetration testing? 10. Has the codebase ever had any security incidents that resulted in release of program participant information to those not authorized to view it? 11. Has the codebase ever suffered any other security incidents? If so, please briefly describe them.

Answers:

1. Yes.

2. To be determined by the proposer.

3. Yes

4. The current PA is responsible for hosting the Mendix application.

5. The new PA will be responsible for paying for hosting and associated fees.

6. OPUC cannot confirm which version of Mendix is currently in use.

7. No

8. Unknown

9. Unknown

10. Unknown

11. Unknown

24. Question: Subject: Mendix: The requirement to use the existing Mendix solution is potentially problematic: A. It is not a performance or functional specification as the Oregon Procurement Manual describes in the “specifications section”. Instead of setting “expected results or the minimum acceptable level of performance of a product or service”, it requires a specific solution. By focusing on how, rather than what, the solution must perform, it eliminates potentially superior options to achieve the underlying goal. B. This is a “brand name” specification per the Oregon Procurement Manual, which requires: “An agency must determine that only the identified brand name will meet the agency needs. The written determination must document that one or more of the following circumstances apply to the agency’s use of a brand name specification: i. It is unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of contracts or substantially diminish competition for contracts. ii. It would result in substantial cost savings to the agency. iii. There is only one manufacturer or seller of the product of the quality, performance or functionality required. iv. Efficient use of existing products requires the acquisition of compatible products or services.” C. This requirement significantly biases the procurement in favor of the incumbent, as Mendix is not used by any other company in this industry except the incumbent and has significant limitations compared to real software. By specifying that Mendix must be used, all potential competitors are immediately disadvantaged. With this in mind: 1. Would the PUC consider eliminating the requirement to use Mendix and replace it with a requirement based on what the software must accomplish? 2. If this is not done, will the PUC provide the written determination required under the Oregon Procurement Manual for this Brand Name specification?

Answer to #1 and #2:

1. No.

2. No. The State and its utility partners have spent significant amounts of money and time in the development and implementation of the CSP based upon the Mendix platform. It would be an inefficient use of State’s and our utility partners’ time and money to implement a new platform.

25. Question: If the bidder team is made up of multiple partners, do all three references have to come from the lead/prime bidder, or can references also come from subcontractors on the team?

Answer: It is up to the Proposer to references as required by the RFP.

26. Question: Do Mendix certifications have to come from a full-time employee on the bidder team, or is use of a technology vendor allowed?

Answer: Proposer must have a full-time employee or a subcontractor with a Mendix Certification.

27. Question: Why is DAS SPS issuing this RFP? Is this a mandatory rebid?

Answer: This is not a mandatory re-solicitation.

28. Question: Is the incumbent program administrator eligible to bid on this RFP?

Answer: Yes.

29. Question: Is the existing program administration platform owned by the state of Oregon or the incumbent PA?

Answer: All Work Product created by Contractor pursuant to the Services, including derivative works and compilations of Work Product, and whether or not such Work Product is considered a work made for hire or an employment to invent, is the exclusive property of Agency. Agency and Contractor agree that such Work Product is “work made for hire” of which Agency is the author within the meaning of the United States Copyright Act.

30. Question: Will you please share the presentation deck and any recording from the pre-proposal conference call?

Answer: The call was not recorded, and a presentation deck was not shared.

31. Quoted text: In the Program Administration Annual Update (Program Year 5: March 2023- Febrary 2024 presentation, slide 24 states Year 6 program Implementation will:

“Support additional carve-out capacity development. Leverage U.S. EPA's $86M Solar for All funding award to ODOE with $16M for financial and technical assistance to CSP projects with 50% low-income participation” Oregon Community Solar Program

Question: How do you envision this program will “leverage” the state’s EPA awarded Solar for All program? Will the PA of this work administer the SFA funds? Or does “leveraging” refer more to cross-program coordination?

Answer: The PA will not be responsible for the administration of EPA Solar for All funds.

Rather, a third party will administer the funds and make them available to CSP projects that elect to receive them as an incentive to commit to greater participation by low-income participants than the Program minimum of 10% of project capacity. It is possible that OPUC may require the PA to track data required of the grant and expected that a new PA would support access to that data where needed.

https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oregoncsp.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F10%2FCSP-PA-YR5-Annual-Update_FINAL.pdf&data=05%7C02%7CKaliska.king%40das.oregon.gov%7C7b1bb0d56a0b4012113208dd3cb7b8d7%7Caa3f6932fa7c47b4a0cea598cad161cf%7C0%7C0%7C638733482081133428%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GV2SfxsNit0%2BECWwTn4P8O0%2F5p0CHtRZR%2F8aRI2Al%2Fs%3D&reserved=0

32. Question: What types of compliance are required in the current management? Do these differ in comparison to Federal Solar for All requirements?

Answer: See relevant ORS, OARs and Commission Orders in RFP Section 2.3, pg. 4-5.

33. Question: Page 5, section 2.3.1: The RFP refers to a statutorily set deployment goal of 160 MW for Oregon’s CSP. Meanwhile, a Year 5 CSP Annual Report presentation by the incumbent PA shows an allocation of 121.9 MW through February 2024. Is the Scope of Work for this RFQ only needed to ensure achievement of 160 MW or is it expected that there will be an increase in the MW deployment goal? Presentation available here:

https://www.oregoncsp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/CSP-PA-YR5-Annual- Update_FINAL.pdf

Answer: The scope of work for this RFP includes the full 160MW of Program capacity, including capacity already allocated to projects and capacity not yet allocated to projects. There is no expectation that Program capacity will be increased beyond the

160MW.

34. Question: Page 5, Section 2.4 Relatedly, are there any challenges regarding cost management and program performance with the current program cycle? If yes, can you provide further detail?

Answer: This is not relevant to the RFP.

35. Question: Page 6, Section 3.1.1 What is meant by “certifications”? Does this entail demonstrating experience with the aforementioned subjects or an official training credential?

Answer: “Certifications” means the current certifications from the Mendix Academy.

36. Question: page 9 Section 3.3.5.2: What specific federal and state compliance and regulatory statutory requirements are required to be addressed

Answer: See relevant ORS, OARs and Commission Orders in RFP Section 2.3, pg. 4-5.

https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oregoncsp.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F10%2FCSP-PA-YR5-Annual-Update_FINAL.pdf&data=05%7C02%7CKaliska.king%40das.oregon.gov%7C7b1bb0d56a0b4012113208dd3cb7b8d7%7Caa3f6932fa7c47b4a0cea598cad161cf%7C0%7C0%7C638733482081156013%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vsC3VE2WTCayIl5ZE37H8LYQiZYKyG%2FxP5Wc72sF8ks%3D&reserved=0 https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oregoncsp.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F10%2FCSP-PA-YR5-Annual-Update_FINAL.pdf&data=05%7C02%7CKaliska.king%40das.oregon.gov%7C7b1bb0d56a0b4012113208dd3cb7b8d7%7Caa3f6932fa7c47b4a0cea598cad161cf%7C0%7C0%7C638733482081156013%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vsC3VE2WTCayIl5ZE37H8LYQiZYKyG%2FxP5Wc72sF8ks%3D&reserved=0