questioncosthebuyline-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/... · web viewbuilding analytics...

City of Seattle Request for Proposal Addendum

Updated on: 03/28/18

The following is additional information regarding Request for Proposal (RFP) No 4334 - Seattle City Light Demand Side Management (DSM) Program and Tracking System Project released on 02/27/2018. The “NEW” due date and time for responses is 04/10/2018, 3:00 PM (Pacific). This addendum includes both questions from prospective proposers and the City’s answers, and revisions to the RFP. This addendum is hereby made part of the RFP and therefore, the information contained herein shall be taken into consideration when preparing and submitting a proposal.

Item #

Date Received

Date Answered

Vendor’s Question City’s Answer RFP Revisions

1 3/6/2018 3/9/2018

Updated3/9/18

Google Earth is a requirement for DSMIs there a similar tool or requirement for Building Analytics?

Google Earth is NOT a requirement for Demand Side Management (DSM)RFP.

Yes. Building Analytics users will utilize Google Earth to verifying the actual use of various buildings.

Note that Google Earth is a requirement for Building Analytics, not Demand Side Management.

Section 12 – Selection Phase, Table 3 – Submittal Checklist, Item M “Complete Set of Functional and Technical/Infrastructure Requirements DSM” Page 29.

“Infrastructure Requirements” workbook should only contain ONE tab “Performance-Infrastructure”. Disregard other four tabs. Corrected workbook is embedded in this Addendum.

This Worksheet has been updated. Please disregard previously posted and reference this one.

2 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 Will the slide deck to the Pre-Proposal conference be published?

of 40



3 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 Will the workshop slides be published?

4 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 Share the Pre-Proposal RSVP and non-RSVP attendee lists.

5 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 Share the list of the vendors that this RFP went out to.

6 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 How many years of historical data do we want to migrate?

Five to ten years historical data is anticipated depending on the system, business need or type of data to be included. Historical building information available in the Commercial Industrial Tracking System (CITS) and Conservation Acquisition Tracking System (CATS) may be older than ten years.

7 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 What degree of change management are you looking for? Assistance with moving between tools or more holistic change management need?

We are looking for a more holistic approach to change management. All employees of Customer Energy Solutions business unit will utilize this tool in their day-to-day duties.

8 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 What is the total number of the users of the Demand Side Management (DSM) system?

We anticipate 100-200 users for the Demand Side Management System. 80 users are CES employees, the other 120 are other users within The City of Seattle and major external trade allies.

9 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 Does the number of users include trade allies and vendors?

Speak to the need to communicate with trade allies and

Yes, we would like some sort of centralized place for vendors to access their projects.

of 40



vendors. Internal users and portals to stakeholders.

10 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 Is it a hard requirement for each project (DSM and BA) to integrate with each other?

We are open to vendor suggestions and value-added features. We would like to see an integration from both systems. Our hope is that it is a fluid system from both sides. Easy navigation with relevant realms of both systems.

11 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 Follow up to previous question (10) – if the overall objective is fluidity with systems, why are they bid separately?

We went back and forth internally. Our research suggested it would be better to proceed with separate RFPs.

12 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 WMBE inclusion plan in Section 12, Table G is a mandatory requirement. Can you please tell us more about it?

The Women and Minority Owned Businesses (WMBE) form is a mandatory for the submittal. This could make a difference if scores are close.

For more information please see section 11.19, Women and Minority Opportunities of the RFP and visit City of Seattle’s WMBE page at http://www.seattle.gov/city-purchasing-and-contracting/social-equity/wmbe

13 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 Discuss budge and how that is considered in the evaluation.

Budget information is included in the RFP’s. This be will included as a percentage in each project scoring.

14 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 Define “Broadcast” in Section 2 Purpose, Question 5. “…create new reports and broadcasts as needed; and perform ad-hoc analysis”.

Broadcast in terms of the Demand Side Management RFP means to allow for information to be disseminated. It is not regarding media messages.

15 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 Finding the perfect team with experience and implementation background will make a huge difference. From a counterpoint who are you looking for from our teams?

The Owner’s project team and associated roles are defined in RFP Section 1. If these roles are not clear enough, please submit specific questions of the additional information requested.

16 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 Minimum Qualifications and Mandatory Technical

Minimum Qualifications – Vendors should respond by indicating whether they comply or do not comply. Vendors must

of 40

http://www.seattle.gov/city-purchasing-and-contracting/social-equity/wmbe

http://www.seattle.gov/city-purchasing-and-contracting/social-equity/wmbe



Requirements: How would you like vendor to respond to those?

also provide a written narrative describing how they comply.

Mandatory Technical Requirements – Vendors should respond by indicating whether they comply or do not comply. No additional narration is required.

17 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 What do you mean by Base Scope? Just required or desired?

Vendor proposals must be responsive to the RFP and be a value proposition inclusive of mandatory, required, and desired requirements.

18 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 Do we include items that are alternate to the base scope in the Value Assessment section?

Yes. The Value Assessment Section is where vendors can include options that are alternate to their proposal.

19 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 How many vendors are going into the clarification phase?

Please see sections 13 and 14 of the RFP for details.

20 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 How do we deal with Personally Identifying Information (PII) in system during the software verification?

We want to see the real system. We don’t need to see critical PII. Privacy will be respected.

Note that a script will be provided to vendors prior to the software verifications. The script will list the functional requirements the City expects to see during the verifications. This will provide vendors advanced notice to consider potential PII concerns and create “dummy data” where necessary.

21 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 What if clients don’t allow us to share actual/live data?

Start by asking them. Usually clients are willing to share so long as privacy concerns are respected. Most clients are excited to share functional data information.

22 3/6/2018 3/9/2018 Provide a list of City employees in attendance at the Pre-Proposal conference.

Presley Palmer, FAS Jeremy Doane, Purchasing Seattle ITPatrick Campbell, Strategic Advisor II and DSM Business Project ManagerArt Conrad, Energy Planning Analyst and BA Business Project Manager

of 40



Michelle Avallone, SCL GIS Business AnalystBert Huelmann Seattle IT Project Manager

23 3/9/18 3/9/18 RFP Correction RFP Correction Schedule regarding the Issuance of date for RFP SCL-4334 is incorrect; it states Friday, February 23, 2018. The true release date was Tuesday, February 27, 2018

24 3/9/18 3/9/18 Share the Pre-Proposal recording. Please open up this link 2018.03.06_14.01_01.MP3 in a VLC player to listen to the recording of the pre-proposal meeting.

25 3/9/18 3/9/18 Addendum update Worksheet in item #1 above has been updated. See Item #1 above

26 3/12/18 3/28/18 Is there an expectation to only accept submissions of existing off the shelf systems?

No. The City is unaware of any system that can meet the DSM requirements off the shelf. Systems with more features that are off the shelf would be more competitive.

27 3/12/18 3/28/18 Will SCL provide weather normalized billing data from their existing Customer Care & Billing System?

Will this be presented at the meter level or only the billing level?

No, the data will not be weather normalized.

This is a task we would like the Building Analytics system to perform. The NOAA weather data CES collects comes from here: https://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdopoemain.cmd?datasetabbv=DS3505&countryabbv=&georegionabbv=&resolution=40

Weather normalization should be at the account level (aka: billing) since there can be multiple meters per account. Not at the meter level.

28 3/12/18 3/28/18 Where do we place our list of assumptions? I do not see a space for that. This is very important for us to understand.

There is not a specific proposal form designated for assumptions. Proposal assumptions will be discussed at the Interview stage. Assumptions will also be confirmed during the Pre-Award Clarification stage with the selected vendor.

29 3/12/18 3/28/18 What version(s) of MS CRM are We are not using MS CRM in SCL. Other departments within the

of 40

https://seattlegov.sharepoint.com/:u:/r/sites/dit/OPM/Contracts/RFPs/MISC/2018.03.06_14.01_01.MP3?e=4%3A48997855877c439ebc641fb98b060053



being used currently at SCL? What is your planned timing for upgrading (and to what version)?

City of Seattle has niche applications for MS CRM, but we do not know their versions, nor is there a specific timeline for any upgrades.

30 3/12/18 3/28/18 What version(s) of MS Office are being used currently at SCL? What is your planned timing for upgrading (and to what version)?

Office 365. No known plans for upgrading.

31 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 1.5 System must allow for multiple levels of project detail (e.g., measure, project, premise, site customer, corporate customer).

Question: How do you define a Site Customer vs a Corporate Customer? Is that just Residential vs Comm/Ind? Please clarify.

Yes.

A Site Customer are those physically at the location who we interact with. The Commercial Industrial customer is the bill payer.

32 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 2.1 - System must interface with, pull and post data from City Light's customer database--Oracle Customer Care and Billing (CCB) and Meter Data Management (MDM)

Question: This states "pull and post data from" which sounds like a 1 way integration from CCB to our system. Same for MDM. Please confirm this is 1 way integration and not 2 way.

Yes, one-way integration from CCB to the vendor’s system.

We anticipate an initial data load followed by weekly updates. There is no plan for real time data or two-way integration.

33 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 2.4 - System must interface with, pull and post appropriate data from City Light's financial database--Summit, a PeopleSoft based system so CES can track incentive payment status.

We anticipate an initial data load followed by weekly updates.

There is no plan for real time data or two-way integration.

of 40



Question: This states "pull and post data from" which sounds like a 1 way integration from Summit to our system. Please confirm this is 1 way integration and not 2 way.

34 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 2.5 - Integrate, and automatically update at regular intervals, BPA's Unit Energy Saving (UES) data into the system.

Question: What format is this in? How do we access this?

The BPA’s Unit Energy Savings data is in Excel file Xlsx format.

For more information visit the Bonneville Power Administration’s site here:https://www.bpa.gov/EE/Policy/ Solutions/Pages/default.aspx

35 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 2.7 Please indicate whether these records include exact references to Customers/Premises in your CCB.

Question: We understand there are 14,000 Projects. Please indicate the Entities and the number of records per entity.

There are fields in CITS that map from customers and premises to CCB. We are not able to distinguish the number of independent existences within projects.

36 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 2.8 Please indicate whether these records include exact references to Customers/Premises in your CCB.

Question: We understand there are 16,000 Projects. Please indicate the Entities and the number of records per entity.

There are four programs that were reported in CATS. All reporting in CATS was terminated October 1, 2016. CATS is also the repository of a former reporting systems going back to 1985. We are unable to provide the number of records per entity. We would like to import and map the data using city light account code as a unique identifier.

37 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 2.9 We assume you will place the data into a singular logical format across the various excel

37.1 There is one excel file per year for approximately five years history.

of 40

https://www.bpa.gov/EE/Policy/



programs. Please confirm.

Question1: Please list how many Different Excel Tracking Files you use.

Question2: Please indicate whether these Excel Files include exact references to Customers/Premises in your CCB.

Question3: We understand there are 2,100 Projects. Please indicate the Entities and the number of records per entity.

37.2 No, in the event of primary mapping key address will be utilized.

37.3 In 2017 we reported the following: Rebates where we have a specific site address:4,354 at SF addresses9,647 at MF addresses (includes unique MF units) Rebates where we do not have a site address:930,000 LEDs & Showerheads40 Retailer MOUs to deliver these measures100 retailer locations for which these were sold at20 BPA reference codes we attached these sales to Additionally, our commercial teams operate programs in MF buildings. This is tracked via another system (CITS, CATS, etc.) In 2017, these programs served a total of 14,154 MF units.

38 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 2.10 - Migrate Energy Advisor Dashboard (EADB) data into new system

Question: We understand there are 0 Projects and 66,000 Inquiries. Please indicate the Entities and the number of records per entity.

See the attached screen shot for fields that capture Customer and Contractor information. These are both commonly populated for commercial customers.

If there is a third-party contact such as a developer, architect, or other; that information is placed into a narrative field without ability to easily extract.

39 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 4.6 - System must allow for electronic signatures of program participation agreements, in particular integration with Adobe Sign

We currently use Adobe Sign for Internal supervisor review and approval and sending final contracts for approval and routing. It is a desirable feature of the future solution to provide automatic approval workflows.

of 40



Question: This is mentioned here as desirable yet mentioned elsewhere as required. Please let us know.

40 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 6.14 System must allow electronic data posting from external sources to be verified and released from quarantine by internal staff before being finalized in system.

Question: Please describe this desired scenario(s) in more detail - along with the desired quarantine release mechanism. Examples are helpful.

The desire is to have Workflow support for adding third-party files to the system. Before we put something into our database we would like quality check.

41 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 7.15 - Ability to easily report energy savings to BPA. Energy savings can be tied (e.g., via lookup table) to BPA UES and custom measure codes.

Question: Please describe this in more detail.

Unit energy savings need to align with the Bonneville Power Administrations requirements found here: https://www.bpa.gov/EE/Policy/Solutions/Pages/default.aspx

42 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 10.9 - System automatically updates relevant databases with contact data.

Question: Please describe this in more detail and/or provide a scenario. This is a very generic statement.

The desired functionality is that the Demand Side Management and Building Analytics solutions will communicate with each other. Consider a new project created in DSM has a new building contact manager, the new information would route and update BA.

43 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 11.7 - Lookup tables to easily map measures between different

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) measures are updated on a regular basis. We would like DSM to have a method for capturing the new information and storing historical data. This

of 40

https://www.bpa.gov/EE/Policy/Solutions/Pages/default.aspx



measure lists (e.g., mapping City Light's internal measure code table to BPA's measures)

Question: Please be more specific and provide examples.

could be automatic through importing files and mapping into DSM or easily maintained manually through internal CES resource.

44 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 11.8 - Ability to add/upload new measure code lists from third parties (e.g., BPA measure codes)

Question: Please be more specific and provide examples.

We need to track the historicity of retired measure codes for projects and accurate program contracts.

Consider a multi-year lighting project at a large facility where certain lights were retired before completion of said project. To comply and provide an accurate incentive, the analyst will need to refer to the retired/historical record at the time of Agreement.

45 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 13.5 - System must support targeted trade ally contacts via web posting, e-mail, mail, or telephone.

Question: Please be more specific and provide examples. Also, what do you mean by "web posting"

Desired requirement is for trade allies to manage their own contact information.

46 3/12/18 3/28/18 Attachment M (FTR) 14.2 - System data should be extractable at multiple levels of project detail (e.g., measure, project, premise, customer) and rolled up for the purpose of conducting time series program evaluations.

Question: Please be more specific and provide examples. Also, what do you mean by "conducting time series program evaluations".

Required requirement will provide the ability to isolate various data points for analyst’s interpretation. This data also needs to be available to export to Excel for deeper analysis in other applications.

We would like the ability to analyze on various data points throughout the history of a project or programs.

Time series data at different levels of granularity is needed to conduct time series evaluations. The historical data analysis will also be used to verify energy savings.

47 3/12/18 3/28/18 Ref: Attachment M (FTR) 15.3 - Yes, this refers to the ability to enter data in a mobile application

of 40



System inspection forms should be available in a synchronous and asynchronous mode to a mobile device to be used for onsite inspections.

Question: What do you mean? Are you referring to the ability to enter data in the mobile app while offline - than have it automatically sync to the database once it is online again?

while offline and have it upload and sync with the database once it’s online.

48 3/12/18 3/28/18 Ref: Attachment M (FTR) 15.4 - System should be able to schedule and track audits, coordinating with all stakeholders.

Question: How do you foresee this taking place? Will this be a manual process that allows users to use Outlook Calendars together with the system for scheduling audits that are related to a Project?

Desired requirement is to track when an audit took place or randomly select projects for audits. This does not need to interact with Outlook.

49 3/12/18 3/28/18 Ref: Attachment M (FTR) 16.4 - Customer satisfaction functionality must also facilitate other types of customer contact (e.g., telephone, mail surveys) by pulling appropriate samples for external survey contractors.

Question: Please clarify what you mean by "facilitate"

The desired requirement would be to identify a sample of customers by sampling methodologies by control group.

Facilitate means to extract the customer information to be used by external survey companies.

50 3/12/18 3/28/18 Ref: Attachment M (FTR) 16.6 - Customer satisfaction database must allow for automatic data entry through automated e-mail,

Please ignore the latter half of the requirement after “Customer satisfaction database must allow for automatic data entry through automated e-mail” as it should have been removed prior to release.

of 40



survey system and through external telephone, mail, or other industry-standard customer satisfaction data collection systems.

Question: Please clarify what you mean/desire by "external telephone, mail...or other systems"

51 3/12/18 3/28/18 Ref: RFP SECTION 7MINIMUM LICENSES REQUIREMENTS

“7.1. If you have a “physical nexus” in the city, you must obtain a Seattle Business license and pay all taxes due before the Contract can be signed. But then later it states that if you do get a contract, you’ll have to get a Seattle Business License" “7.5. The apparent successful Vendor must immediately obtain the license and ensure all City taxes are current, unless exempted by City Code due to reasons such as no physical nexus. Failure to do so will result in rejection of the bid/proposal."

Question: It appears items 1 and 5, under section 7 are contradictory. So, are we required to get a business license regardless of whether or not we have a physical nexus?

No, a Seattle Business License is only required if you have a physical nexus; 7.1 references that fact. 7.2 stresses that as well but makes clear that not having a physical nexus exempts you from having to obtain a Business License.

of 40



52 3/12/18 3/28/18 Ref: RFP SECTION 11.15SMC 20.60.106 (H) authorizes that in determining the lowest and best bid, the City shall consider the tax revenues derived by the City from its business and occupation, utility, sales and use taxes from the proposed purchase. The City of Seattle’s Business and Occupation Tax rate varies according to business classification. Typically, the rate for services such as consulting and professional services is .00427% and for retail or wholesale sales and associated services, the rate is .00222%. Only vendors that have a City of Seattle Business License and have an annual gross taxable Seattle income of $100,000 or greater are required to pay Business and Occupation Tax. The City will apply SMC 20.60.106(H) and calculate as necessary to determine the lowest bid price proposal.

Questions: What does the statement below mean and how does it apply to our firm (residing outside of Seattle)?

Section 11.15 is a tax consideration that is calculated to reduce the evaluated bid total of vendors that have a City of Seattle Business License and have an annual gross taxable Seattle income of $100,000 or greater. If your business does not pay a Seattle Business and Occupation Tax, this reduction would not apply to you.

53 3/12/18 3/28/18 Ref: RFP SECTION 11.18"Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 20.45 (SMC 20.45) requires consideration of whether Vendors provide health and benefits that are the same or equivalent to the

This is in regards to the employees of the vendor which is awarded the contract.

of 40



domestic partners of employees as to spouses of employees, and of their dependents and family members. The bid package includes a “Vendor Questionnaire” which is the mandatory form on which you make a designation about the status of such benefits. If your company does not comply with Equal Benefits and does not intend to do so, you must still supply the information on the Vendor Questionnaire. Instructions are provided at the back of the Questionnaire."

Question: Are we talking about vendor’s employees? Same or equivalent to domestic partners as to employees. Whose employees are we talking about? Need clarification.

54 3/13/18 3/28/18 Is there a page limit to the Security Response document?

No, there is not a page limit to the Security Response document.

55 3/13/18 3/28/18 Can the City provide a copy of the City Security and Privacy Policy? It cannot be accessed from the base RFP Document.

Security and Privacy policies and information can be found on this link to the City of Seattle Information Technology website: https://www.seattle.gov/tech/

56 3/13/18 3/28/18 Software Terms and Conditions, 49. License for Use

Question: (“VENDOR”) is providing a cloud-based SaaS solution that will be configured to meet the City's specific requirements. “VENDOR” is not physically delivering software.

The terms and conditions should be considered a sample contract. Because the type of solution (on-prem, SaaS, hybrid) is not yet known, the editing and negotiating of the terms and conditions will not take place until a successful vendor has been announced.

of 40

https://www.seattle.gov/tech/



We request that this requirement be modified or removed for cloud-based SaaS solutions. “VENDOR” is happy to discuss further with the City why the concept, while relevant in traditional on-premise, perpetual license software, does not make sense in a cloud-computing model.

57 3/13/18 3/28/18 Software Terms and Conditions, 54.3 Data Security

(viii) strictly segregating the City’s Data from information of Vendor or its other customers so that the City’s Data is not commingled with any other types of information;

Question: (“VENDOR”) PaaS/SaaS multi-tenant architecture and secure logical controls address separation of customer data. “VENDOR” has configurable security features that allow customers to customize security based on the sensitivity of data customers store in the application consistent with the requirements in NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 4 for moderate impact systems. Our rationale is also in alignment with FedRAMP requirements using virtual isolation between related entities.

Therefore, can the City modify this requirement accordingly?


of 40



58 3/13/18 3/28/18 Security Response, 4

Question: Does the City anticipate storing CJI data as a part of the solution?

If so, will the City accept responses that propose an encryption solution to meet the CJIS requirements in protecting CJI data? The encryption solution would encrypt all data in transit and at rest and which the keys could be managed solely by the City and not by the Cloud Services Provider.

If the City does not anticipate storing CJI data in the solution, can the City please adjust and remove the RFP requirements that refer to CJIS compliance? By not removing this requirement, this will make a significant difference in complexity and cost in the vendor's proposed solution.

No. There is no requirement for Criminal Justice Information in the Demand Side Management system.

59 3/13/18 3/28/18 Software Terms and Conditions, 35. Background Checks and Immigrant Status

Question: We assume this only applies to contractor personnel that are performing the solution implementation services and not the (“VENDOR”) personnel that are hosting the solution.

For example, “VENDOR” engages


of 40



the services of a background-screening vendor to conduct background checks on employees at the time of hire in the United States.

“VENDOR” also performs background investigations in certain foreign countries. The scope of these checks is subject to local laws in the jurisdictions in which the employee is hired. Can the City please modify this requirement accordingly?

60 3/13/18 3/28/18 Software Terms and Conditions, 54.5 Assurance

Question: As a multi-tenant cloud service provider, we do not typically offer a Right to Audit clause as part of the base service offering. As a multi-tenant service, compartmentalization is virtual, not physical. Annual site visits can be arranged at the City's expense, but in consideration of our other customers, random access cannot be permitted. We have third party auditors that inspect and review our security. We undergo annual audits for compliance with additional frameworks such as SSAE 16 SOC 1, SOC 2, SOC 3, ISO 27001, and PCI-DSS Level 1. The results of these audits can be provided to the City as desired under NDA. Is this acceptable to meeting the City’s requirements?


of 40



61 3/13/18 3/28/18 Software Terms and Conditions, 54.4 Security Breach

Question: “Vendor” is a service provider and the City would be one of hundreds of thousands of customers using the service. “Vendor” can contractually commit to incident response reporting timeframes in a customer contract. One component driving the timeframes is the “Vendor’s” ability to communicate to a wide customer base in the event of an incident. In a multi-tenant cloud environment, the “Vendor” could be reporting to thousands of customers if there is a security incident impacting multiple customers. “Vendor” utilize one incident response process for all customers. Utilizing one approach allows for scalability and ease of operations.

Additionally, due to the nature of the “VENDOR”'s service, the “VENDOR” can only report actual breaches, not attempted, suspected, threatened, or foreseeable breaches. As a multitenant environment, an attempted breach against another tenant would not be reported to the City.

In the event of a security breach


of 40



and if negotiated in the agreement, the “VENDOR” can notify the City identified points of contact. The “VENDOR” cannot notify affected parties because the “VENDOR” does not view customer data. The “VENDOR” is responsible for maintaining access in terms of performance and availability to the data. The customer owns the data.

As such, we would like to request the requirements for breach notifications should align with the existing “VENDOR” reporting requirements that also align with FedRAMP and request that the City change this requirement to "within 48 hours of an incident".

62 3/13/18 3/28/18 Is the budget outlined inclusive of both the Demand Management and Analytics projects? If not, can the City please define the budget for each solution separately?

The $850,000 over three years listed in the DSM RFP is the budget for Demand Side Management project. The Building Analytics project has as separate budget, also consisting of $850,000 over three years.

The budget for each project is $850,000 or $1.7 million for both projects.

63 3/13/18 3/28/18 In order to derive at a licensing cost estimate we are seeking the total number of named users that will access the solution. What are the anticipated total numbers of the City internal users that will require access to the solution? What is the volume of external users that will be accessing the solution on a monthly basis? For

120 internal named users are estimated for the DSM system.

An additional 100-200 is a rough estimate for non-named external users per month.

of 40



each of these user counts, please provide total number of users, and not just number of users accessing the system at any one time.

64 3/13/18 3/28/18 Technical and Functional Requirements Matrices: Response Codes

Question: Currently the response codes to the requirements matrix are as follows:

Out-of-the-Box: The base software contains these features/functions and can be immediately used upon initial software installation.

Configurable: These features/functions are already developed and within the Vendor’s repertoire; however, some amount of configuration will be required beyond initial installation (i.e. integration into the base software via plug-ins, add-ons, etc.)

Customizable: These features/functions would need to be created via a dedicated programming/development effort in order to meet City Light’s needs.

Not Available: These features/functions are not

Yes, your statement is accurate. “Out-of-the-box response code includes that the requirement can be met with initial installation and standard administrative level changes to the application that require no custom/procedural source code or third-party software. Examples of administrative level configurations are activities such as: adding values to existing drop-down lists, adding new fields, re-arranging fields on page layouts, adding users, resetting passwords, defining and assigning system profiles and permissions to users, creating workflows, etc.”

of 40



available in the Vendor’s solution

We would like clarification on these definitions because Out-of-the-Box, Configurable and Customizable mean different things to different vendors and we want to ensure we answer accurately.

Can the City confirm that the Out-of-the-box response code includes that the requirement can be met with initial installation and standard administrative level changes to the application that require no custom/procedural source code or third-party software. Examples of administrative level configurations are activities such as: adding values to existing drop-down lists, adding new fields, re-arranging fields on page layouts, adding users, resetting passwords, defining and assigning system profiles and permissions to users, creating workflows, etc.

65 3/13/18 3/28/18 How Many completed “Past Performance Surveys for Software Vendors” are required for submission?

Please refer to Section 12.4k – Past Performance Surveys for IT Project Team, which states: “A maximum of three (3) Past Performance surveys may submitted for each project team personnel.” Please refer to Section 12.4i – Past Performance Surveys for Software Products, which refers to the same instructions as 12.4k, in that a maximum of three (3) Past Performance surveys may be submitted for the vendor’s software product/system

66 3/13/18 3/28/18 Infrastructure Worksheet, No response is needed for Customer Service Requirement 054,

of 40



Customer Support Infrastructure – 054

There is no requirement listed. Can the City provide the missing requirement?

this line is an error.

67 3/13/18 3/28/18 Infrastructure Worksheet, Customer Support Infrastructure - 055

There is no requirement listed. Can the City provide the missing requirement?

No response is needed for Customer Service Requirement 055, this line is an error.

68 3/13/18 3/28/18 There are a several references to integration, connection, and interfacing to other databases and systems. Which databases or systems will require direct and/or real-time connection with this solution?

City Light does not anticipate the need for real-time connection with any solutions; we do not have a need for that level of data integration.

69 3/13/18 3/28/18 If bidding both RFP 4332 and 4334, are bidders allowed to co-mingle budgets to split the $1.7M total available budget the way they see fit?

Yes, if the vendor is the successful bidder for both RFPs. This would occur during the pre-award clarification period.

70 3/13/18 3/28/18 Project Team a. Will the RFPs

have dedicated team member? If no, who much of the time is going to be allocated to each project?

b. Who will be involved from SCL? (i.e. data analyst, program managers,

A. Yes.

B. DSM has a dedicated IT project manager, a dedicated business project manager, and an array of SMEs and technical leads available as necessary. The intention is to define the needs and time commitments for the staff. City Light recognizes the importance of this effort and is committed to supporting it with the necessary human resources.

C. Yes, during pre-award clarification, vendors can—and are encouraged—to provide a list of needs from City Light, including City staff time.

of 40



subject matter experts, technical leads, etc.)

c. Is it possible to request specific individuals with particular skillset from SCL’s team?

d. Will we be sharing resources from other projects?

D. Some staff, such as IT resources, will likely have other responsibilities and be involved with other projects, but we will work to ensure staff are available and able to meet to the pre-established time commitments.

71 3/13/18 3/28/18 Budget & Scope a. How was the

budget determined for both RFPs? For example, was the “base” requirements evaluated for the price listed in the RFP?

b. In the meeting, it was said that price accounted for only 15% of the overall score. However, how will the team evaluate/reconcile the bid on services (value services over base) versus price?

a. The budgets for each project were established using a combination of our research over the last few years, discussions with vendors, insight gathered from the Request For Information that was released in 2017, and on the Customer Energy Services Division budget authority. We believe this budget is sufficient to provide the scope outlined in the RFP, but we did not go into any exhaustive research to price out our requirements.

b. The Value Assessment is a separate evaluation criterion and is weighted at 10% of the overall score. The City notes that the Value Assessment may include a variety of itemized scope alternates at the vendor’s discretion (each of which may be cost additive, savings, or neutral).

of 40



72 3/13/18 3/28/18 Dependencies a. Are any of these

RFP’s success dependent of other projects? For example, data will be sourced from will be an enterprise data warehouse; however, it has not been built. There is a current a data consolidation and data cleanup project that will go-live in March of 2019.

b. Are there any known risks and/or issues that SCL have identified for the RFPs?

A. The DSM’ success is not dependent upon other projects completion. There may be resource dependencies with competing Information Technology projects.

B. Yes.

73 3/13/18 3/28/18 Timeline a. Are there any

periods of time that may impact the availability of project resources (i.e. operational reporting cycles)?

Yes, some periods of time could affect the availability of project resources (e.g., end of year energy savings reporting affecting SME availability), though we are working to mitigate these and preparing to have staff available during these periods.

74 3/13/18 3/28/18 Past Projects a. What were the

common issues

a. What were the common issues that SCL have faced in past projects? With past projects, the Division had scoped, evaluated and purchased a system without fully

of 40



that SCL have faced in past projects?

b. What were the common risks SCL faced in past projects?

c. Was there a common team and/or project structure that was most successful in working with SCL?

d. With projects that utilized this RFP process, it was mentioned that there were no change orders. How successful was this process in managing scope creep? What did you do if something was not identified within the contract?

understanding the functionality, administrative roles/rights, the integration needs, or the required implementation effort before signing a contract. For example, the Customer Energy Solutions Division initiated the implementation of a Conservation Tracking System in the late 1990’s. This system was purchased and implemented, but it was abandoned within just a couple years because it did not offer the desired flexibility and we did not appreciate the administrative roles and responsibilities associated with the purchased system. In the end, we see the common issues as being able to manage risk and expectations for all parties involved in the project. We see this procurement process and its clarification period as being essential to establish a common understanding of the risks, the appropriate roles and responsibilities, and level of effort required to implement these systems. Another set of common issues that we are attempting to address with this scope is the need to apply appropriate change management techniques to this project and to allow for sufficient training. Our division has been using the Commercial Industrial Tracking System for approximately eighteen years and our processes and workflows have been modified only slightly over time. So, we have been doing work in a very similar fashion since 2000. The implementation of a new system is a significant change management effort and these projects tend to be fraught with anxiety and uncertainty; new technology brings with it learning-related challenges and some staff are concerned about their role/responsibility and job security. These issues are important to us and we want to make sure that we address them to ensure success.

b. Regardless of the project, the common risks are linked to the issues identified above. Without clear expectations, roles/responsibilities, and a plan for dealing with

of 40



controllable and uncontrollable risks, we and our vendor are at risk for cost overruns, missed deliverables, and frustration.

c. Success has been associated with having a well-defined project charter in place that is formally supported by leadership and executive management. The project charter clearly communicates the roles of the various team members and provides a structure for decision making. Each project might be unique in its team structure, but the design has been vetted with the appropriate participants and leadership.

d. Although no RFP process can guarantee the elimination of change orders, the objective of this RFP process is to minimize change orders, scope creep and controllable risks. This objective is addressed in several ways, including but not limited to:

(1) the Risk Assessment – Non-Controllable submission is intended for vendors to identify risks to the project that may affect cost, schedule, and/or scope along with recommended solutions. (2) the Pre-Award Clarification Phase (described in RFP Section 14), which occurs with the single selected vendor, is a formal process intended to identify potential risks of scope creep and minimize potential scope gaps. The intent is to ensure agreement and understanding between the City and the selected vendor on such items prior to contract award. (3) the Weekly Risk Reporting System (described in RFP Section 16), is a formal and on-going reporting system that will monitor project status in relation to contracted cost, schedule, and scope as well as risks. If any item occurs that was not identified within the contract (as mutually agreed to and understood by the

of 40



City and the awarded vendor), the item would first be identified within the Weekly Risk Reporting System and then be formally reviewed by both parties to determine whether a change order process should be initiated.

75 3/13/18 3/28/18 In response to Purpose 2.1- Has your team already started actively considering potential (COTS) products for these solutions? If so, what do they include?

Yes, though a compelling case needs to be made for the potential value over-and-against other COTS solutions. Please note that a working version of the system needs to be available for scripted demos

76 3/13/18 3/28/18 General question, applies to the project as a whole - Is your team open to a custom-built application (not COTS) as long as the solution and hosting are all managed by the vendor?

Yes, though a compelling case needs to be made for the potential value over-and-against other COTS solutions and working version of the system needs to be available for scripted demos.

77 3/13/18 3/28/18 In response to Purpose 2.11 - There's mention of the City's future CRM system. Has your team considered building this solution as an extension of/or siloed instance of that CRM solution?

It was considered early on, but the timeline and scope of the CRM effort is not mature enough for CES to rely upon that system as a base for the DSM system.

78 3/13/18 3/28/18 In responsive to Mandatory Technical Requirements 6.1

1. What is the ideal model or process for managing incentives?

2. Is there an existing administration area in which to add or remove incentives that have passed or recently been created?

There is an existing team that manages the Incentive programs for City Light and complies with all City, State and Federal requirements.

For additional information feel free to visit the City Light Incentives web pages: http://www.seattle.gov/light/solarenergy/SIP.asp

of 40

http://www.seattle.gov/light/solarenergy/SIP.asp



79 3/13/18 3/28/18 In response to Mandatory Technical Requirements 6.10 -Are these unique identifiers existing in current systems and in need of consolidation? If not, are they going to be generated on this new system?

There is currently no unique identifier for all projects recorded in the various systems. Some systems will have their own unique IDs for the subset of projects they store. We anticipate the new system will provide a new schema for uniquely identifying these projects.

80 3/13/18 3/28/18 In response to Mandatory Technical Requirements 6.17 -Is the project manager dashboard assumed to a be like MSFT project, in that changes to the dashboard would write back to the system itself? If yes, please confirm the following expected behavior to be true: a user changing due dates and/ or timelines in the dashboard would alter those in the internal system.

No, that is not an assumption of requirement 6.17. We would accept the dashboard as simply being a visual display of high level project information, that users could subsequently drill down into to make changes to the project details.

81 3/13/18 3/28/18 General question, applies to the project as a whole -Is it acceptable for the vendor to set up an architecture of your complete solution (which may include a number of off COTs and custom integration) end to end?

Yes.

82 3/13/18 3/28/18 General question – Will the city add 45 days to the RFP submission deadline, for the business purpose of assisting in developing and finalizing a partnership with sub-contractor as needed?

No.

83 3/13/18 3/28/18 Approximately how many programs will Seattle City Light be moving to the Demand Side Management System? Of those programs, how many annual

Roughly a dozen programs. We anticipate several thousand projects per year, though substantial number of these are relatively simple transactions rather than more involved projects.

of 40



projects on average will be running on the software?

84 3/13/18 3/28/18 How many residential programs will you manage through the software?

There are less than a dozen workflows for residential programs.

85 3/13/18 3/28/18 How many commercial programs will you manage through the software?

There are less than six workflows for commercial programs.

86 3/13/18 3/28/18 What does City Light intend to integrate with—CIS (including usage data), accounts payable/receivable, CRM, etc.?

CCB and Building Analytics will be the only integration points for DSM at this time. There could be future integrations to Summit and MDM.

Historical data migration will be from EA Dashboard CITS, CATS and Excel workbooks.

87 3/13/18 3/28/18 City Light stated it is interested in bringing in 10 years of historical data. Typically, customers choose an average of two years of historical data. In what form does City Light house the historical data?

There are several formats for housed data. The primary sources of historical data will be CITS, an Access database, EA Dashboard and CATS, both Oracle-based system. The other major source of data will be from Excel workbooks.

We are open to recommendations about the number of years of data to bring in, as we are aware data migration is a time-consuming and often costly endeavor. We would like a balance of cost and benefit in this endeavor and look to vendors for advice on this front during the pre-award clarification.

88 3/13/18 3/28/18 How many face-to-face trainings is Seattle City Light expecting?

There are no preconceived expectations on the number of training sessions.

89 3/13/18 3/28/18 Does Seattle City Light desire three references for both the K. Past Performance Surveys for IT Project Team and L. Past Performance Surveys for Software Products forms?

If so, what type of clients should complete the K. Past Performance Surveys for IT

The City requests up to a maximum of three references for each member of the vendor’s project team using the “K – Past Performance Surveys for IT Project Teams” form. In other words, the City requests up to three references for each lead person identified in the “N – Project Team” form.

The City also requests up to a maximum of three references for the Software Product using the “L – Past Performance Surveys for Software” form.

of 40



Project Team form vs. the L. Past Performance Surveys for Software Products form?

If not, will providing three references captured in the L. Past Performance Surveys for Software Products form be sufficient?

Combined, the Past Performance Surveys is worth 5% of the total evaluation. Vendor responses to the “K – Past Performance Surveys for IT Project Teams” will comprise half of the Past Performance Survey evaluation. Vendor responses to the “L – Past Performance Surveys for Software” form will consist of the other half of the Past Performance Survey evaluation.

90 3/13/18 3/28/18 The Introduction section of the DSM RFP provides a detailed view of the roles City Light believes will be engaged from Steering Committee and Program Sponsor through SMEs and QA resources. Given that there will be a fair amount of integration with other systems such as Oracle CC&B, will there be City Light IT representation on the program as well? To support system integration and cyber security related testing? Will this be City Light IT or System Integrator of City Light's choice?"

Yes, Seattle Information Technology SME’s will be available for integration needs and other technical endeavors.

91 3/13/18 3/28/18 Functional Requirement 6.1 - System must allow energy savings to be entered by third-party consultants who execute energy efficiency programs and collect program data, pre-assigned (deemed) in system and/or calculated from core data such as equipment size and efficiency. a. Is this energy saving per project or at a program level?

This depends upon the program. In some cases, programmatic reporting is acceptable, but other programs will require reporting at a project or transaction level (e.g., simple rebates for home appliances).

92 3/13/18 3/28/18 Functional Requirement 4.6 Adobe Sign is currently utilized for customers to approve and

of 40



outlines the desired capability to integrate with Adobe Sign. Can the City provide more detail on how Adobe Sign will be integrated into the workflow for each program and what documents need to be signed by which participants?

sign incentive agreements. It is also used internally for supervisory approval of project documentation.

We anticipate continuing to use Adobe Sign for signing participation agreements in our incentive programs. We anticipate the new DSM system to offer workflow for project approvals.

93 3/13/18 3/28/18 Functional Requirement 2.11 outlines a desirable feature to integrated with ArcGIS or other City Light GIS system. Can the specific workflow and applications be expanded to provide more insight on how the use of the GIS system must be integrated with the system? Is the main desire to allow analysis of program execution or market segmentation by geography/demographics outside the system (e.g. export to ArcGIS)?

Correct. The main desire here is the ability to analyze projects and programs geographically and demographically and have a greater understanding of our services. A secondary, and optional, feature is a visual map of a project’s location in that project’s details page. This would simply be a helpful reference for our program managers and engineers, but is an optional feature, not something mandatory.

94 3/13/18 3/28/18 Functional Requirement 2.13 - what type of "system control data" is desired to be captured and how is it anticipated to be used within the program workflow?

Please ignore requirement 2.3—this should have been removed prior to release.

95 3/13/18 3/28/18 Functional Requirement 6.14 - what type of data should be "quarantined" and what release form of quarantine process is the City desiring to support? What type of review procedures are desired to be completed manually by staff or processed electronically before integrated into the system? Would this involve all sources of information

The intention behind this requirement is simply to allow for an approval by internal staff before reported energy savings data are accepted as official and approved when submitted by third party contractors (i.e., for our retail instant discount program).

of 40



such as historical data, BPA data, interval consumption data, utility rate codes, measure codes, uploaded energy models, CCB or MDM or billing data, etc.? What are the desired validation processes?

96 3/13/18 3/28/18 Can the City provide examples of I-937, quarterly reports, forecast reports or other reports which may be helpful to understand the content and format of the desired reporting?

Examples of I-937reports are included in the RFP and embedded here for refence.

97 3/13/18 3/28/18 Functional Requirement 7.7 - can

the City provide more detail about the level of data extraction capabilities and desired tools to perform these query or extraction functions? Or is the desire to allow information extraction within the application beyond a standard user interface with filter lists/drop downs/etc.?

Our vision for DSM is to have a standard interface with drop down lists.

The Energy Analysts have a desire to go beyond basic queries to extract data for multiple purposes in Excel and Tableau.

98 3/13/18 3/28/18 Functional Requirement 9.7 - does this requirement imply checking that document artifact(s) must be electronically signed, signed by specific individual(s), or actively engage the user to sign a document/procedure step before commencing the workflow to the next stage?

The desire is for the system to have internal routing and approval processes.

99 3/13/18 3/28/18 Functional Requirement 9.16 - can the City further clarify this requirement to auto-populate checklists? Is the desire to

We would like the ability for predetermined checklists to be configurable for programs based on program parameters (e.g., size, Kilowatt hours). Similar to program templates.

of 40



populate data available from other sources for downstream processes, or dynamically create forms or other verifiable data that is only required for specific activities within a project?

100 3/13/18 3/28/18 Functional Requirement 10.25 - Multiple staff can be assigned to the same project.a. Can you clarify your intention of ‘assigned?’ Is it sufficient that a group has visibility to the project in their dashboard, or do you really want to list multiple, specific names?b. Are these to execute processes in parallel or to simply allow any available staff member that has access to the project to complete the task?

A. Projects are typically assigned to one person, but occasionally two people. We expect the system to associate projects with those individuals, so that they can easily sort for their own projects, and so that supervisors may view which projects specific staff are working on and ensuring proper workload management.

B. We would like any staff member with access to the project to complete a task in the system.

101 3/13/18 3/28/18 Functional Requirement 11.1 - Assign and track measures with unique IDsa. Should these IDs be assigned by system or user? If system, is there special logic to the ID?

We defer to vendor expertise in combination with SME for best practices knowing measures are fluid and need to be tracked over time.

102 3/13/18 3/28/18 Functional Requirement 11.9 - can the City provide examples of how prospective measures would be used within the program implementation, workflow, or program design?

This is the ability to stage program designs and save work in progress.

103 3/13/18 3/28/18 Functional Requirement 17.1 - is the desire of this feature to allow analysis and statistical calculation outside of the system (such as an extract to another system or

Yes.

of 40



application environment like Tableau, SAS or R)?

104 3/13/18 3/28/18 Suggestions for Team assignments?a. During the solicitation process our key team members are extensively involved with delivery of core product features, enhancements, and customer onboarding. We would like to ensure the City has full appreciation for the team's capabilities and ability to manage the program including how we have extensively brought other customers on board. To accomplish this, we would like to ensure their availability via GoToMeeting or other remote presentation method. Can there be consideration for this interview methodology?

The City strongly prefers in-person interviews with the project team members listed in the “N – Project Team” form. No other individuals will be allowed to participate in the Interviews. Vendors who have advanced knowledge of special circumstances that prohibit a team member from attending the interviews are required to notify the City with as much notice as possible. In such cases, and if approved by the City, a videoconference is the preferred format for conducting the interview with any team member unable to attend in-person. Please refer to Section 13.2 of the RFP, which states:

“The individuals that will be interviewed must be the same person that is identified in the Vendors’ Proposal. No substitutes, proxies, phone interviews, or electronic interviews will be allowed (special circumstances may be considered at the sole discretion of the City– please notify the City with as much notice as possible). Individuals who fail to attend the interview will be given a score of zero, which may jeopardize the Vendor’s competitiveness.”

105 3/13/18 3/28/18 While additional information was provided on historical data import (5 to 10 years of CITS and CATS) during the Q&A, can the City provide more information about the number and types of formats that this data is currently stored, and number of individual records or files that need to be integrated?

CITS: There are 14358 project records currently in CITS. These consist of about 50 backend tables that have 100K+ of data entries in the tables. CITS data is in Access format.

CATS: There are 12549 project records currently in CATS. The database has 71 tables. They have about 1 million data entries in the tables. CATS data is an Oracle database.

106 3/13/18 3/28/18 Is there an effective method to convey the level of configuration or customization that is contained in the proposed budget submission which would be consistent among all submitters?

The Functionality Review Section outlines these definitions on Page 1:

Configurable: These features/functions are already developed and within the Vendor’s repertoire; however, some amount of configuration will be

of 40



required beyond initial installation (i.e. integration into the base software via plug-ins, add-ons, etc.)

Customizable: These features/functions would need to be created via a dedicated programming/development effort to meet City Light’s needs.

The City will follow best practices and general definitions for software development in that Out-of-the-Box functionality are those easily configured by the business, templates, or built-in workflows. Configurable functions are those usually created by the vendor. Functionality not created with built-in workflows or tools is considered Customizable. Customizable builds often contain the risk of being costly to maintain over time.

107 3/13/18 3/28/18 The contract term seems to be ambiguous as “continuous one-year extensions” where the RFP seems to imply 4 years with the option to renew for an additional 2 year term. Would the contract be modified to be consistent with the RFP?

The terms and conditions should be considered a sample contract. Because the type of solution (on-prem, SaaS, hybrid) is not yet known, the editing and negotiating of the terms and conditions will not take place until a successful vendor has been announced. The terms presented in the RFP are the tentative project term whereas what is listed in the terms and conditions is on ongoing option to renew for support of the awarded solution.

108 3/13/18 3/28/18 Section 4 of the Sample Terms includes Change Orders which was “originally identified within the originating solicitation.” How does the City intend to rectify those terms with responses by Vendors including mandatory, desirable and configurable options presented by the Vendors and negotiated during the Pre-Award Clarification Phase through Clarification Summary Meetings


of 40



and priced or excluded as part of the proposal submissions?

109 3/13/18 3/28/18 If Vendor’s are licensing products for the term of the agreement including any 2-year renewal, can the City clarify the desired Intellectual Property Rights in section 31 and License for Use section 49 and 53. It is the intention of Vendor to provide a license to use the pre-existing, configured and enhanced software offering for the period of license but not to extend the rights to the software or intellectual property beyond those terms (I.e. perpetual, royalty free license). The City would maintain all rights to Data created in the system during the period of the license term and such data would be returned to the City at the conclusion of the contract, but it is not clear what other rights are being requested in the contract terms.


110 3/13/18 3/28/18 In the event of an emergency that impacts multiple customers, if a Vendor can provide recovery and emergency services in the same priority and not diminutive to Vendor’s other customers (Section 39), is this acceptable? Is this the correct interpretation of this desired service level?

The terms and conditions should be considered a sample contract. Because the type of solution (on-prem, SaaS, hybrid) is not yet known, the editing and negotiating of the terms and conditions will not take place until a successful vendor has been announced. The interpretation of all the clauses are open to discussion during negotiations.

111 3/13/18 3/28/18 AR2014.PDF has the list of programs included. Is this the current list of programs for SCL's

The AR2014 embedded document on Page 5 of RFPSCL4334, is a draft of 2014 Annual Report for the Conservation Division containing programs at that time. We do not anticipate any major

of 40



portfolio and will be what we price out for implementation? Do we expect any portfolio changes between now and implementation?

changes to the portfolio.

112 3/13/18 3/28/18 RFP seems to reference 18 systems. Please confirm how many external systems will we need to integrate with to capture historical data.



113 3/13/18 3/28/18 CCB and MDM, City Light's Billing System, Customer Consumption & Profile integration - will these be separate integrations or will SCL consolidate the export into 1 integration?

Our expectation is that the vendor may need to integrate separately with CC&B and MDM.

114 3/13/18 3/28/18 Can SCL please provide a detailed process for encumbrance carryforward.

For all purchase and consultant contracts, the City of Seattle and Seattle City Light encumber funds from the current year’s budget to any purchase order and then automatically carryforward those funds to the next year (or more) until the purchase order has expired, the service/product has been delivered, or the funds have been exhausted. This ensures the City has the funds allocated and available when invoices are due regardless of the when the purchase order was created. Another way of stating this is that taking these steps, the City ensures that projects are funded appropriately and are not dependent upon future budget authority. We anticipate using City Light’s 2018 budget for both RFP’s to contract with firms and to establish purchase orders for the implementation costs associated with the first three years. In each RFP we have indicated that the project budget is $850,000 for three years, inclusive of all implementation, licensing, and maintenance for the term. The Customer Energy Solutions Division has sufficient budget authority in 2018 to create purchase orders and to encumber this amount of funding for each

of 40



project.

115 3/13/18 3/28/18 If you bid both RFP’s could SCL select one bid separately?

Yes.

116 3/13/18 3/28/18 Is SCL expecting one individual lead for both projects or a different lead on each project?

There will be one bid for each project, however if one vendor is the successful bidder there may be one lead. We expect the vendor to define their resource model in the response.

117 3/13/18 3/28/18 Where should we capture the value of a joint bid?

The Value Assessment section is where vendors can include options for a joint bid.

118 3/13/18 3/28/18 Risk profile of each of the bids is different from the risk profile of a combined bid. Should we handle the risk profile if combined verses separate as we will have less control over risk if it is awarded as two separate contracts?

Risk profiles should be listed separately for each bid. In the event one vendor is the highest score for DSM and BA, we will discuss an updated risk profile of combined projects during the clarification and Statement of Work stages.

119 3/13/18 3/28/18 Can SCL provide a list of programs and associated details (integrated and with who, or managed internally).

There are approximately a dozen workflows for all residential and six for commercial programs.

120 3/13/18 3/28/18 For each integration with SCL enterprise systems please provide whether the integration will be one-way or bi-directional and in which way will the data flow?



121 3/13/18 3/28/18 We need guidance on how bidders are supposed to respond to one or both RFPs when there are clear integration requirements between the two solutions. Where should this integration be documented? Also, where should the integration costs be noted, as a line item in each RFP response;

Bids are evaluated separately. Integration documentation and costs for each should be included in each response.

The Value Assessment Section is the appropriate location to highlight savings and any risk reduction for one vendor selection.

of 40



a line item in one response; or as a value add? Also, if a bidder is only providing responses to one RFP, how are they to estimate the integration requirements with an unknown solution that is being bid in for the other RFP?

122 3/13/18 3/28/18 14.5 - System should be capable of managing pay for performance (P4P) whole building savings programs.• Is the solution to calculate the payment and produce an invoice?

Invoices are created in City Light Accounts Payable Financial department; therefore, the system is not responsible for creating invoices or billing capabilities.

The DSM System will be the source record of payment calculations and kilowatt hours. The system should be able to perform basic energy saving calculations.

123 3/13/18 3/28/18 17.2 - System should be able to perform cost-benefit calculations using a utility cost and Total Resource Cost (TRC) methodology based on appropriate measure life.- What model is Benefit Cost based on? California, Minnesota, Etc.?

The cost-benefit calculations are based on the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) total cost resource model. For more information visit webpage:https://www.bpa.gov/Finance/RateInformation/Pages/default.aspx

124 3/13/18 3/28/18 Regarding budget: It is $850,000 for the Building Analytics and $850,000 for the Tracking Solution, which includes all implementation, licensing and maintenance for a 3-year term. Given the scope and scale of this assignment can the value of the $850,000 budget be reconsidered?

We will not reconsider the budgets at this time. We believe this budget is sufficient to provide the scope outlined in the RFP.

The budgets for each project were established using a combination of our research over the last few years, discussions with vendors, insight gathered from the Request for Information that was released in 2017, and on the Customer Energy Services Division budget authority.

125 3/13/18 3/28/18 The RFP States: “At Seattle City Light, we have about 388,000 residential accounts and 42,000

There is no additional information relating to assets/premises for non-residential accounts or parent and child account for non-residential buildings other than what resides in CITS and CATS

of 40

https://www.bpa.gov/Finance/RateInformation/Pages/default.aspx



non-residential accounts and the BCD is updated biannually with the non-residential accounts.” • Does SCL have any additional information relating to assets/premises for non-residential accounts? • Can SCL provide any additional details and count on parent and child accounts for non-residential buildings?

systems.

126 3/13/18 3/28/18 Are there planned phases for the integration of all the accounts into the system or would it be all at once?

We anticipate the DSM system will be phased. Details willbe discussed during clarification and statement of work stages.

127 3/13/18 3/28/18 Would SCL be willing to consider an extension of two week beyond the April 3rd deadline for both RFPs? The integration and partnership discussions to create a comprehensive solution requires additional time to fully develop a robust solution.

No.

128 3/26/27 3/28/18 Has consideration been given to an extension for proposal submission?

Proposal due date has been extended for one week. See change to the right →

RFP Due Date & Time has been extended as follows:

RFP Due: April 10, 2018, 3 p.m. Pacific Time Zone

129 3/26/18 3/28/18 Equal Benefits: In completing the Vendor Questionnaire, If we only provide benefits to married couples are we allowed to check Option (A) that “all benefits are available on an equal basis”?

To comply with Option A, vendor must provide equal benefits to non-married, domestic partners of its employees. There are other options that vendor may be able to check to fit how benefits are provided. Unfortunately, the City will only review proposals from vendors who are “non-compliant” if all proposals are non-compliant for equal benefits or if no other solution is responsive to the RFP and therefore removed from the process.

of 40

questioncosthebuyline-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/... · web viewbuilding analytics...

Documents