Pre-Application Questions and Answers for RFP-17-307

Pre-application Questions and Answers for RFP-17-307:

Measuring Innovation Progress to Guide Future Investment: Evaluation of EPIC Benefits Methodology

Written for:

RFP-17-307 Applicants

Written By:

Energy Development and Market Facilitation Office

California Energy Commission

Date: December 13, 2017

Administrative/General

1. QUESTION: Is this RFP related the following topic: Developing in-situ structural health monitoring system for increasing reliability of Aluminum Conductor Composite Core (ACCC). If not, I appreciate if you direct me to the right program.

RESPONSE: No, the topic described is not related to this RFP.

1. QUESTION: Are TAC members compensated through this contract? If yes, are contractor team members able to be delegated to serve on the TAC?

RESPONSE: No, TAC members are not compensated through this contract. The TAC should be comprised of outside experts or interested parties in the work being done, and not members of the project team.

1. QUESTION: Are the presentations to TAC members at end of tasks supposed to be in person?

RESPONSE: Presentations to TAC members can be held in person or through a video or WebEx conference.

1. QUESTION: Under what process and/or circumstances does CEC disclose the cost and rate information contained in proposals? Does CEC post contractor cost structure data on its website?

RESPONSE: Per the solicitation document, Section III, Proposal Format, Required Documents, and Delivery,“The information provided in these forms, like the rest of proposals,will not be kept confidential after the posting of the Notice of Proposed Awards.”After the Notice of Proposed Award is posted for this solicitation, the Energy Commission will disclose all application materials, such as cost and rate information, upon request. The Energy Commission does not plan to post such information on its website, or make it publicly accessible outside of a specific request.

1. QUESTION: If a bidder is supporting an existing CEC EPIC project, are they conflicted out of bidding on this RFP?

RESPONSE: No, this situation would not be considered a conflict of interest.

1. QUESTION: Please confirm which terms and conditions will apply to this solicitation (the “EPIC Terms and Conditions” or the “PIER Terms and Conditions”)

RESPONSE: The terms and conditions that apply to this RFP are the EPIC Terms and Conditions. The standard terms and conditions and the University of California/California State University terms and conditions for EPIC contracts are located at: The U.S. Department of Energy terms and conditionsfor EPIC Contracts are under negotiation and will be posted once finalized.

Budget

1. QUESTION: The RFP indicates that all submitted documents will become public records. Attachment 7 requests a break out of costs, indirect rates and profits, which we typically consider confidential business information. Is providing the fully-loaded rate schedule acceptable at the time of bid to establish the contract ceiling rates and protect our confidential business information, assuming we agree to standard contract terms?

RESPONSE: No, the budget must break out costs as described in Section F (beginning on page 34 of the RFP).Ceiling rates are set for each rate individually.

Note:Failure to agree to the terms and conditions, or condition acceptance on modifications to the terms will result in the rejection of the proposal. Please see pages 10 and 37of the solicitation manual. In addition, documents submitted in response to this RFP will become public records and would be available to the public should the documents be requested.

1. QUESTION: Can the CEC clarify the instructions regarding the expected level of effort described on page 15 of the RFP? The section states that “the total number of hours for classifications in that task must equal the total Level of Effort (hours) identified in Table 1” and that any bid containing adjustments will be considered nonresponsive. Do these instructions indicate that our bid must align with the prescribed level of effort by task (i.e., our allocation for Task #1 must equal 760 hours, Task #2 must equal 6600 hours, etc.) or that our bid must align with the total Level of Effort (i.e., our total allocation must equal 19,000 hours and we can distribute across tasks as we deem appropriate)?

RESPONSE: The bid must align with the prescribed level of effort by task and as a total, as described in Table 1 of the RFP and Attachment 7b (Total Expected Labor Costs).This means that an applicant’s allocation for Task #1 must be 760 hours; Task #2 must be 5,800 hours, etc. Additionally, the total level of effort must equal 17,000 hours.

Note: Addendum 2 makes minor revisions to the level of effort by task in Table 1 of the RFP (pages 15-16) and Attachment 7b.

Project FocusandScope of Work

1. QUESTION: Page 23 of the SOW suggests that the winning contractor will be required to complete three project benefit questionnaires. It is our understanding that the scope of the current project is to develop a benefits methodology, but not to undertake work that would directly produce technical/economic benefits. Can the Commission clarify if the contractor will be required to fill out the questionnaires for the current project?

RESPONSE: Yes, the contractor will be required to fill out benefits questionnaires for this project as part of Task 1.11 (Evaluation of Ratepayer Benefits). However, the benefits questionnaires will be limited in scope to include only standard EPIC reporting metrics, and will not include an assessment of the economic or technical benefits of this project.

1. QUESTION: Does section 1.11 anticipate an assessment of activities conducted under this contract, or a cumulative examination of the findings of work under the contract?

RESPONSE: Task 1.11 (Evaluation of Project Benefits) is an assessment of activities conducted under this contract to evaluate the ratepayer benefits of this contract. A cumulative examination of the findings of work under this contract is undertaken in Task 3.

1. QUESTION: The RFP reference documents identify key criteria used for the evaluation of EPIC benefits, but those documents do not appear to include a coherent framework or methodology. Does such a framework or methodology exist that can be used by the contractor and can it be shared during the proposal phase?

RESPONSE: The Energy Commissionis developing a uniform framework for evaluating the ratepayer benefits of EPIC projects and expects this contract to assist in that effort. Currently, most EPIC benefits assessments are done individually. As part of this contract, the Energy Commission is hoping to create a standardized, robust methodology. After the contract is awarded, the Energy Commission does plan to share a broad framework with the contractor.

1. QUESTION: Will the contractor have access to prior benefit questionnaires and the associated data generated by those questionnaires?

RESPONSE: Yes, the contractor will have access to prior completed benefits questionnaires, and the data associated with those questionnaires, at the direction of the CAM.

1. QUESTION: To what extent is the characterization or quantification of uncertainty in benefits valuation a priority for CEC? Does CEC have a preference regarding methods for the treatment of uncertainty?

RESPONSE: The treatment of uncertainty in benefits valuation is a priority for the Energy Commission, especially as it relates to market adoption rates, and future technology development or cost reductions. Uncertainty in benefits valuation is also important to the extent it can help the Energy Commission increase transparency to ratepayers regarding the uncertainties inherent in EPIC research. The Energy Commission currently does not have a preference regarding methods for the treatment of uncertainty.

1. QUESTION: Is CEC seeking an evaluation methodology that condenses potential benefit areas into a single summary score or metric (such as dollar values) that can be applied to all projects or is the CEC open to a more multi-objective evaluation framework that includes multiple endpoints which may vary depending on the nature of the project?

RESPONSE: The Energy Commission prefers a multi-objective evaluation framework, which may include a single summary score, but does not rely solely on this summary score. The framework should include metrics for the impact of EPIC funding on the technology addressed by each EPIC project, and impacts to the broader market and IOU ratepayers.

1. QUESTION: Does CEC intend for IOU programming funded by EPIC to be covered by the methodologies developed under this contract?

RESPONSE: No, the methodology should be developed for the EPIC portfolio administered by the Energy Commission.

1. QUESTION: Would this methodology be applied primarily to Tech Demos?

RESPONSE: No, the methodology developed under this contract needs to apply to all EPIC projects, including applied research and development, technology demonstration and deployment, and market facilitation projects.

Page 1 of 5