The Sault Ste. Marie Innovation Centre, on behalf of a group of community stakeholders, is pleased to issue this RFP. We are inviting consultants to take part in developing a Community Alternative Energy Strategy for Sault Ste. Marie.
View the entire RFP here.
Please note that there have a few questions come in from consultants that we want to clarify for everyone:
1. How do you interpret who is independent or not affiliated with any prime service provider or manufacturer? And have an extreme comprehension of the areas listed in the RFP? Please refer to requirements 5 and 6 of Section 5b.
The intent of this criteria was really to avoid a direct conflict situation (ie, Company XYX manufactures certain alternative energy technologies and wants to develop the strategy and recommends products in their portfolio). Consultants can declare any potential conflict that they see in performing the work.
2. Does the budget include taxes?
The $70k budget does not include taxes; ie. a consultant could bill up to the entire $70k level plus taxes.
3. What is the scope of distribution of the RFP?
The RFP has been posted publicly on the SSMIC website and there is no restriction for firms that wish to apply. We have tried to spread the word about the RFP as much as possible and circulated to colleagues across Ontario.
4. Are travel expenses included in the $70,000 budget limit, or can they be submitted over and above the budgeted costs for professional services?
Travel expenses are included in the $70,000. The good news is Sault Ste. Marie is now also serviced by Porte Airlines and pricing is coming down for air travel to Sault Ste. Marie.
5. What is expected to be the work division/relationship between the local Project Team and the Consulting Team? Is the Consulting Team simply a resource for the local Project Team as they develop the Alternative Energy Strategy or is the Consulting Team the ‘lead’ with oversight by the local Project Team and support as needed?
The consulting team is the lead on developing the strategy but we expect the Project Team will play an important role on gathering local input from stakeholders and assisting in the development of the strategic plan.
6. What is envisioned for the content of the ‘3’ community visits? Are they strictly limited to meetings with the local Project Team and Alternative Energy Committee, or can they include visits for stakeholder consultations?
The community visits should absolutely include stakeholder consultations and are not limited in any regard.
7. In outcome 4(a), is the deliverable expected to identify specific (i.e. named) opportunities? If so, is the Consulting Team expected to make contact with possible proponents and/or secure discussions with possible proponents?
The more specific the opportunities the better. We will leave this to the consultants to determine if this is possible given the scope of work and networks they possess.
8. In outcome 4(b), is the deliverable expected to identify purely physical/geographic attributes or do these include other attributes such as economic conditions (e.g. municipal tax rates), infrastructure status (e.g. grid capacity, access to positive geographic attributes), support capacity (e.g. service oriented business to support business development, labour capacity to support manufacturing)? If the latter is true, how does this outcome differ from outcome 4(g)?
4 b) was not meant to be purely physical. It can include human resources, governance, etc.
7. In outcome 4(b), what level and type of support will the local Project Team contribute to the analysis?
The local project team is expected to provide a high level of support for 4 b) and will be able to bring familiarity with the assets and attributes to the external consultant.
8. In outcome 4(e), is the Consulting Team expected to collect the data and information sought? What level and type of support with the local Project Team and the Geomatics Centre contribute? What data and information relevant to the alternative energy sector has already been collected and/or mapped by the Geomatics Centre (i.e. maps for solar farm locations)?
It is anticipated that the CGC will be able to provide a majority of the information required however new data sets may be suggested by the consultant. The local project team and CGC will provide a high level of support for this task. A great deal of information and data has already been captured relative to local (SSM) and regional green energy projects.
9. Is outcome 4(f) expected to deliver precise job opportunities for each possible local market development opportunity or is the outcome expected to simply identify employment spheres that could arise from possible development opportunities (e.g. mid-pay manufacturing, high-end executive, professional services, etc…)? Alternatively, are the growth potential and job creation referred to only suppose to be criteria to be included in the deliverables for outcomes 4(a) and 4(d)?
4 f) is expected to deliver estimated job opportunities with as much specificity as possible for local market development opportunities. The job growth estimates will be used in criteria of 4 a) and d) but amongst other criteria to determine priorities.
10. Under ‘Proposers Capabilities’ s.5(c)(iii) references ‘allied organisations’, what outcomes are envisioned to require the expertise of these organisations?
These allied organizations were envisioned to provide additional data points and information that could inform the strategic plan.
11. In the ‘Evaluation Criteria’, is the ‘scope of work tasks’ meant represent the tasks identified in the proposal needed to achieve the deliverables for each section 4 objective?
12. In the ‘Evaluation Criteria’, on what basis will ‘ability to identify and make connections with other jurisdictions and technology companies’ be evaluated?
This will be based on a proponent’s past experience and demonstrated examples of performing this type of work?
13. In the ‘Evaluation Criteria’, will ‘Project Manager’ be evaluated on the capabilities set out in s.5(c) of the RFP? If not, on what basis will this be evaluated?
Yes, the criteria provided in 5. c) will help determine the evaluation for section 2. of the Evaluation Criteria.
14. In the ‘Evaluation Criteria’, who are ‘external stakeholders’ and/or how do they differ from community stakeholders identified at page 2 of the RFP?
The external stakeholders are alternative energy corporations and allied organizations described earlier in the RFP.