Attachment IX - Q and A Responses.pdf

SPE60424R0406 F.E. Warren AFB 2024 Attachment IX Page 1 of 5

ATTACHMENT IX

Q&A Responses

1. April 1, 2026 is in central time for the RTO cut over, This will have HE24 March 31 MPT for settlements purposes does FEW anticipate receiving bills for the month of March for services, energy, capacity, transmission, and services from both WAPA and the contractor?

a. Contractor will not have settlement data nor the weekly settlement or previous for this single hour.

DLA Energy Response: The Contractor is not expected to provide settlement services (energy, capacity, transmission) for a period of time during which data is not made available.

2. What is the plan if the SPP RTO “go live” were to be pushed from the April 1, 2026 date?

a. Will WAPA continue to provide merchant services and activities to FEW until go live?

DLA Energy Response: F.E. Warren has a contract with WAPA to provide merchant services up through March 30, 2026. The Air Force would seek an extension to the contract were the SPP Integration delayed and the contractor was unable to transition to provide merchant services prior to the “go-live” date.

b. Will the contractor be expected to provide services for WEIS then transition to SPP RTO when go live commences?

DLA Energy Response: It is not a requirement of this solicitation to supply electricity under WEIS prior to the SPP-RTO West effective date (go live). An offeror is not required to have the capability to supply electricity under WEIS to be eligible for contract award, nor will such capability be considered during the evaluation of proposals as indicated in Section 4.5 of Attachment V – Proposal Requirements as revised by Amendment 0001.

c. Is there an opportunity for the contractor to take over operations prior to April 1, 2026?

DLA Energy Response: Please refer to Section 5 of the Statement of Work (Attachment I) as revised in Amendment 0001. If the Contractor is able, and if both F.E. Warren and WAPA are prepared to transition prior to the SPP-RTO West effective date, then the Government may seek a bi-lateral modification to the contract to begin the Electric Supply Period (as defined in Section 5 of the Statement of Work) under WEIS and prior to the SPP-RTO West effective date.

3. Is FEW against purchasing power that is beyond the 5 year term of this contract?

Example is March 30, 2026 -September 30 2031or even September 30, 2036 or September 30, 2041? When looking at forward commercial prices for CFE duration has a direct impact on pricing.

DLA Energy Response: The Government’s purchasing authority may not exceed five years from the date of contract award, anticipated to occur on November 1, 2024. Please see response to

Attachment IX Page 2 of 5

Question 4 below concerning CFE. Please refer to the Government’s response to Question 4 regarding CFE.

4. When reviewing CFE by 2030 that is only a partial portion of this contract.

a. Understanding the expectation of FEW is key to procuring compliant energy.

i. Outside of the WAPA LAP allocation that is not 100% CFE all times of the day nor year (currently) the only guaranteed solution would be to procure excess CFE that exceeds projected load + margin and oversupply to the market, while self scheduling. This would most likely produce a credit from the IM and in my opinion still meet the pass through provision, is that your understanding?

DLA Energy Response: Section 10 of the Statement of Work (Attachment I) does not require the supply of Carbon Pollution-Free Electricity (CFE). Rather, this language states that during the period of performance the Contractor should use reasonable efforts to present options for the supply of CFE for the Government’s consideration. Any accepted proposal for CFE would be agreed to via bi-lateral modification to the contract. The details of any potential CFE supply would be discussed prior to the execution of any such modification. The supply of CFE is neither a requirement for contract award, nor will it be considered during the evaluation of proposals.

5. Does the contractor need to concurrently work on IM integration and WEIS registration with the suspension of RTO go live not meeting the April 1 date?

a. Will WAPA still be the meter agent in WEIS activities if the go live is pushed and WAPA is not the merchant service provider?

DLA Energy Response: F.E. Warren has a contract with WAPA for Balancing Authority Services which would continue to provide meter settlement services and checkouts for meter data until the SPP RTO go-live, or in the event the Government executes a bi-lateral modification to establish a new start date for the Electricity Supply Period as stated in Section 5 of the Statement of Work (Attachment I) as revised by Amendment 0001.

6. Do we as a respondent need to register with SAM or any other government system or vendor system, for our RFP to be considered? Or could we wait to register until after notification (should we be chosen)?

DLA Energy Response: Yes, offerors should be registered with SAM prior to the closing date of the solicitation. Please refer to FAR 52.204-7, SubParagraph (b)(1) which states:

“An Offeror is required to be registered in SAM when submitting an offer or quotation, and shall continue to be registered until time of award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract, basic agreement, basic ordering agreement, or blanket purchasing agreement resulting form this solicitation.

Please also refer to FAR 52.204-7, Paragraph (c) which discusses SAM registration, obtaining a Unique Entity Identifier, and the type of information that may need to be provided.

Attachment IX Page 3 of 5

7. Could you please provide any additional information (emails, notes, further explanation) from SPP where they state Warren AFB won’t require or impact the credit of the SPP Market Participant?

We have been trying to get an answer from SPP as it pertains to our legal and credit structure, but have not been successful yet.

DLA Energy Response: Below summarizes a recent e-mail exchange between the Government and

SPP:

Government: The following statement was included in the RFP issued by DLA: “The addition of FE Warren as a load does not impact the Contractor’s application previously submitted to SPP, or determination by SPP that the MP meets the requirements consistent with the OATT Attachment X, Southwest Power Pool Credit Policy.”

FYI - This is what SPP provided by email in response to prior questions on how the addition of FE Warren would impact current MPs credit: “If [MP Name] is the by the MP and the credit holder, they would be financial responsibility, no language would need to be added. The credit holder is the financially responsible party.”

If SPP could either affirm the statements above, or provide an alternative response, by Thursday 9/5/24 we can include the e-mail response with the Q/A to be shared with vendors.

SPP: I reconfirmed with credit, that the credit holder is the financial entity responsible, which is usually the Market Participant.

Government: We understand that the credit holder is the financial entity responsible. Can you please confirm that the addition of FE Warren would NOT result in a review of the MPs compliance under Attachment X, Southwest Power Pool Credit Policy.

SPP: If operating under another credit holder there would be no separate credit requirements or separate credit review.

8. Attachment VIII Pricing Sheet –

a. To clarify, the CLIN1 Enrollment Fee is analogous to a one-time onboarding fee?

DLA Energy Response: The price offered for CLIN 0001 is intended to cover all costs associated with work to be completed by the Contractor during the SPP Enrollment Period, as defined in Section 5 of the Statement of Work (Attachment I). Section 5 of the Statement of Work defines the SPP Enrollment Period as “The period from the date of contract award until the SPP-RTO West effective date, presently scheduled for April 1, 2026…” Section 7.1 of the Statement of Work further defines what is to be included in the price for CLIN 0001.

b. And CLIN2 is the monthly service fee for a provider? To confirm the math on the 43 months: If we assume Contract Start of November 2024, with a five year term, which would run through October 2029. Go-Live is anticipated as April 2026. So there would be 9 billed months in 2026. 12 months in 2027. 12 months in 2028. And 10 billed months in 2029. Is this correct?

DLA Energy Response: Yes, Section 7.2 of the Statement of Work (Attachment I) states that CLIN 0002 “…will compensate the Contractor for all labor and efforts related to the procurement of energy and capacity resources, all market participant services, all scheduling

Attachment IX Page 4 of 5 coordinator services, and all costs related to settlements and preparation of monthly invoices. The Transaction Fee shall be invoiced to FEW as a separate line item on each monthly electricity supply invoice issued following the commencement of the Electricity Supply Period.”

The number of billed months stated in the question above is consistent with the Government’s current expectation. Should the assumed date of award or SPP-RTO West effective date change prior to contract award, the solicitation will be amended accordingly.

c. I would propose all the Pass Through Charges section would be left blank, because they are not known until after the fact or upon execution of any purchase. Is this a correct assumption?

Our company does not offer a fixed/known price for capacity, energy, or transmission charges.

DLA Energy Response: Please refer to Section 8 Pass-Through Charges/Credits of the Statement of Work (Attachment I) which states each of these charges/credits are to be invoiced based on the applicable market rate without markup. The Government does not intend to fix the cost of any Pass-Through Charges/Credits defined in this section.

Regarding the request for prices of Pass-Through Charges/Credits on Attachment VIII – Pricing Sheet, the values will not be evaluated and used for informational purposes only. Please refer to Section 4.4.2 of Attachment V – Proposal Requirements which states:

“The Government is soliciting representative pricing for the items defined in Section 8 Pass-Through Charges/Credits, of the Statement of Work. Pass-through prices should reflect current market expectations and will be used for budget purposes only and will not be considered for purposes of Price Evaluation. Representative prices shall be submitted on Attachment VIII – Pricing Sheet.”

9. Attachment VII – we do not subcontract any of our work that is contemplated under the RFP. Can I not submit this form, or is it required even if left blank, in order for the offer to be considered compliant?

DLA Energy Response: Please refer to Section 7 Subcontracting Plan of Solicitation Attachment V

– Proposal Requirements which states:

“The offeror shall submit a Commercial or Individual Subcontracting Plan that satisfies the requirements listed in FAR 19.704; unless no Subcontracting opportunities exist. In accordance with FAR 19.705-2(c) Subcontracting Plans will not be required if no subcontracting possibilities exist. A statement as to why no subcontracting possibilities exist should be submitted with the proposal to allow the Contracting Officer to make a determination.”

Please note that the subcontracting plan requirement is distinct and separate from the Small Business Participation evaluation factor. All proposals must address the criteria defined in Section

4.3 Small Business Participation of Attachment V – Proposal Requirements, regardless of the presence of subcontracting possibilities.

10. We have and continue to trade capacity and energy with the federal government, but this is our first experience responding to a federal RFP. The requirement to provide proof (not just a written acknowledgment) for every requirement in every document seems daunting – how do we prove we have the ability to hire employees? How do we prove we have an office with computer equipment?

Attachment IX Page 5 of 5

Just as a couple of examples I’ve read in the federal guidelines with Section 9.104.

DLA Energy Response: All offerors must meet both the general responsibility standards defined at FAR 9.104-1 and the Special Standards defined in Section 4 Evidence of Responsibility of Solicitation Attachment V – Proposal Requirements. However, please note that satisfying the Special Standards will also fulfill many of the requirements defined in FAR 9.104-1. Other General Standards will be considered to have been met following the Government’s review of the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s Specially Designated Nationals List, the Bureau of Industry and Security’s Denied Persons List, and applicable “exclusion” lists and Responsibility and Qualification data within the System for Award Management website.

11. Would non-conforming offers be considered at all, or are the federal regulations so strict that each box must be checked? We have the people and systems to provide the scope of work. But some of the requirements require significant lead time with SPP or investment of money or time that is not possible to complete and show proof of by the submission deadline. It could all be completed to meet SPP deadlines and serve the scope requested.

DLA Energy Response: Please refer to the response to Question 5 above. Offerors must satisfy both the responsibility criteria defined at FAR 9.104-1 and those listed in Section 4 of Solicitation Attachment V – Proposal Requirements to be considered for award. However, any additional questions or concerns regarding responsibility criteria may be submitted with each offeror’s proposal for further consideration.