| Q. What is the difference between the EECBG program and the EECBG TA program?
A. Here in New Hampshire, the EECBG Subgrant Program and the EECBG Technical Assistance Program constitute the major components of the State's EECBG Program. An overall description of New Hampshire's EECBG program is available online at http://www.nh.gov/oep/recovery/documents/eecbg_draft_plan.pdf  . More information about the Technical Assistance subdivision is available online at http://www.nh.gov/oep/recovery/documents/eecbg_technical_assistance_proposal.pdf .
Q. When does the State estimate awarding a contract(s) from this RFP?
OEP expects to execute a contract on December 9, 2009.
CORRECTION: OEP expects to execute a contract in January or February of 2010.
Q. What is the estimated value of all contracts resulting from this RFP?
The value of all contracts resulting from this RFP shall not exceed $2 million.
In the initial posting of the RFP, this information was inadvertently omitted. Please note the following text has since been added to the RFP: Page 8, Section III, Item #8 now reads:
"Detailed Budget Proposal: Bidders must provide OEP with a detailed program budget; broken out annually that identifies the hourly rate for personnel, other administrative costs relative to this program, and other budgetary content. Budget for EECBG Technical Assistance Coordination shall not exceed $2,000,000."
Q. The Technical Assistance RFP states that the Administrator "will" provide certain technical assistance services. Beyond the services that are explicitly listed, will OEP consider services that would contribute to the development of a "strong foundation to provide long-lasting technical assistance on energy services to municipalities?" This potential applicant can offer several additional services that would potentially contribute significantly towards that intent, but they are not included in the list of services specified in the RFP. Do you encourage this potential applicant to propose offering those services, or will they not be considered because they are deemed to be outside the scope of work requested?
A. OEP will consider proposals that exceed the scope of work delineated within the RFP.
Q. The scoring sheet seems to indicate that an applicant offering only one type of technical assistance, i.e.:
- grant writing assistance
- energy savings measurement and verification
- ongoing energy monitoring, inventorying
- financial mechanisms
- hiring energy consultants and contractors and or
- community outreach and education
would be considered "incomplete."
Is that a correct interpretation?
A. No. The scoring panel's review for application completeness will involve a cursory scan to ensure that all required items under Section III, "Components of the Proposal" have been addressed. Respondents electing to propose work encompassing individual elements of the scope of work may do so.
Q. The RFP states that the TAC will: "Provide inventories of municipal energy use to New Hampshire municipalities and counties." Later, the RFP states: "Energy inventories of all government operations shall be generated for all communities that request them."
Given that there is not a statutory requirement for municipalities to inventory and report their energy usage, can you please confirm that the inventories required will only be from the municipalities that request them and want to collaborate on their creation?
A. Yes. Inventories cannot and will not be forced upon communities that do not want them.
Q: I would like to request the list of recipients of the RFP in order to identify potential collaborators for our proposal.
A: OEP has not targeted any recipients. OEP announced the release of the RFP through its ARRA listserv, but has not sent it to anyone in particular. The RFP is available to anyone through OEP’s Web site, the Web site of the NH Department of Administrative Services, and/or the Web site of the NH Office of Economic Stimulus.
Q: If there are a number of organizations that will be partners in an application, do you need audit reports for all three years from every participant? Or do you only need the audits for the lead applicant?
A: Only the audit of the lead applicant would be required in order to determine the management and financial capacity of the entity to manage the program. OEP expects that the lead applicant will exercise its due diligence in reviewing the capacity of its partners prior to including them in the proposals. If awarded, OEP reserves its right to review financial statements of all partners.
Q. The diagram under the “Basic Guidelines” repeats inventory in the flow chart on page 4of 9 of the RFP. What are the differences between the type of work expected in the first “Inventory” under Roadmap Process and the second “Inventory” under Strategic Plan/Roadmap?
A: The work expected in the “first ‘Inventory’” will consist of an inventory of all local government energy use. The “second ‘Inventory’” is meant to illustrate the cyclical process that should be addressed in the Roadmap. The Roadmap should include a strategy for how a community plans to inventory, prioritize, audit, take action and measure on an ongoing basis.
Q. The OEP has the option to “select from multiple proposals—creating a collaboration through which various entities will manage different elements of the program.” If an entity presents their particular services within all five tasks as defined the Scope of Work, based on the positioning that, if selected, the entity will be part of a larger collaboration, will an application be deemed “incomplete”?
A. No. Such an application would not be rejected on the basis of its plan to collaborate with other entities.
Q. Massachusetts has developed such a computer based system called an Energy Information System for municipalities, which was started in 2006 and was recently allocated over $1million just to offer it free to municipalities. In this OEP grant, is the State expecting the Technical Assistance Coordinator to create a new computer program that can account for different space usage within municipal buildings; for different energy mixes and different types of municipal buildings; and for benchmarking these building in comparison other similar municipal buildings?
A. OEP expects the RFP respondent to determine whether the development of new software is the proper way to facilitate the work required delineated within the RFP.
Q. If creation of such database is not included in the proposal by an entity, will OEP determine the application is “incomplete”?
A. No proposal will be rejected simply because it does not explicitly incorporate the development of new software.
Q. If development of such a database is delayed, will the OEP allow the Coordinator to use other existing programs such as recognized data management programs like Portfolio Manager and other carbon calculators?
A. OEP would consider a proposal that incorporates the use of existing software.
Q. The RFP states the central database will perform benchmarking against similar building types. What is OEP’s definition of benchmarking, meaning using Btu/sq. ft. as the comparison metric or using the building’s normalized energy consumption as the comparison metric?
A. OEP has not developed its own definition of “benchmarking.” OEP will permit RFP respondents to propose benchmarking methodology.
Q. Is the State more interested in calculating carbon emissions based on site energy, the amount of heat and electricity consumed by a building as reflected in utility bills, or source energy, which is the amount of primary energy used off-site to deliver the amount of energy consumed on-site?
A. A total inventory of carbon emissions includes direct emissions from use of energy directly by a municipality (i.e., gasoline, fuel oil, etc.) and indirect emissions from electricity use. Carbon emissions from electricity use can be estimated by using emissions factors such as the regional marginal emission rate published by the Independent System Operator of New England. OEP will work with the contractor to establish the preferred methodology for estimating carbon emissions.
|
