FAQs

Answers to your Frequently Asked Questions ("FAQs") are posted on this page. To ask a question, please use our automated form. FAQs will be posted every Wednesday. FAQs will be posted daily during the week prior to the deadline for submitting Pricing Proposals and Qualification Materials.”

Evaluation of Proposals

Go to Page:    1 (Newest)    2    3 (Oldest)    | << Back to FAQ Categories


  • FAQ-250:
    I have a customer who submitted a Proposal in the June 2011. Will the customer have received a notification regarding their Proposal by now?

    Proponents in the June 2011 were notified shortly after the Board decision on July 14, 2011 of the results of the solicitation. If your customer has not yet received a notification from the Solicitation Manager, please contact us via email so that we may investigate the matter further.



    08/09/2011 in Evaluation of Proposals

  • FAQ-235:
    To confirm that we are reading the rules correctly and are within the Developer Cap across all our projects, if we submit (assuming they are all price competitive proposals) in ACE territory the following system sizes:
    System-1: 174.800 kW
    System-2: 402.500 kW
    System-3: 1,399.780 kW
    Given that we have not submitted on any previous rounds and have no last accepted proposals, will you accept all three of these projects, since the total is 1,977.080 kW ... and 30% of this amount (593.124 kW) does not exceed the planned quantity by 20%? We note that FAQ-234 states that the largest project size for a single project is 1,978.674 kW.


     

    That is incorrect.
     
    The figure of 1,978.674 kW is for the case where a proponent submits a SINGLE project in the ACE territory during the 2012 Reporting Year. The calculation of the developer proceeds differently if a proponent is submitting more than one project.
     
    Specifically, the RFP Rules state that the combined awards across all solicitations in a given RPS Reporting Year for a given EDC (ACE or JCP&L) that are associated with any one Developer, or any combination of affiliated Developers under the same majority ownership, do not exceed 20% of the planned quantity for that EDC in that RPS Reporting Year by more than the larger of: (a) 150 kW; or (b) 30% of the system size of the last accepted Proposal associated with that Developer (or any combination of affiliated Developers under the same majority ownership).
     
    Please consider the following examples.
     
    Example 1. A proponent submits a bid for a single project in ACE's territory with a size of 1,800 kW and a price of $400/SREC. 
    -- The size of the project (1,800 kW) exceeds 20% of the planned quantity (1385.072 kW) by 414.928 kW. 
    -- The last accepted project is the only project with a size of 1,800 kW.
    -- The larger of: (a) 150 kW; and (b) 30% of the system size 0.3*1,800 kW = 540 kW; is: 540 kW
    -- The award exceeds the planned quantity by less than 30% of the system size (414.928 < 540). 
    The proponent does NOT exceed the developer cap. 
     
    Example 2. A proponent submits a bid for two projects, one with a size of 450 kW at a price of $500/SREC and another with a size of 1,350 kW at a price of $400/SREC. Both projects are for a duration of 10 years. Note that the total combined size is 1,800 kW, the same as in the first example.
    -- The size of the projects (1,800 kW) exceeds 20% of the planned quantity (1385.072 kW) by 414.928 kW. 
    -- The last accepted project, assuming both projects are competitive, would be the 450 kW project since it has a higher price. 
    -- The larger of: (a) 150 kW; and (b) 30% of the system size 0.3*450 kW = 135 kW; is: 150 kW
    -- The awards exceed the planned quantity by MORE than 150 kW (414.928 > 150).
    The proponent DOES exceed the developer cap and the 450 kW project could be rejected for that reason.
     
    Example 3. A proponent submits a bid for two projects, one with a size of 450 kW at a price of $400/SREC and another with a size of 1,350 kW at a price of $500/SREC. Both projects are for a duration of 10 years. Note that the total combined size is 1,800 kW, the same as in the first example.
    -- The size of the projects (1,800 kW) exceeds 20% of the planned quantity (1385.072 kW) by 414.928 kW. 
    -- The last accepted project, assuming both projects are competitive, would be the 1350 kW project since it has a higher price. 
    -- The larger of: (a) 150 kW; and (b) 30% of the system size 0.3*1350 kW = 405 kW; is: 405 kW
    -- The awards exceed the planned quantity by MORE than 30% of the system size (414.928 > 405).
    The proponent DOES exceed the developer cap and the 1350 kW project could be rejected for that reason.
     
    What these examples illustrate is that it is not only the total amount of capacity across projects that matters but also how that capacity may be distributed across one or several projects. Although your projects add up to less than 1,978.674 kW, the three projects together exceed the developer cap. Again, the figure of 1978.674 applies only to a SINGLE project.
     
    For example, if system 3 has a price of $400, system 1 has a price of $450, and system 2 has a price of $500:
    -- The size of all three projects (1,977.08) exceeds 20% of the planned quantity (1385.072 kW) by 592.008 kW. 
    -- The last accepted project, assuming all projects are competitive, would be system 2. 
    -- The larger of: (a) 150 kW; and (b) 30% of the system size 0.3*402.5 kW; is: 150 kW
    -- The awards exceed the planned quantity by MORE than 150 kW (592.008 > 150) Thus system 2 could be rejected for developer cap reasons. Further, considering just systems 1 and 3:
    -- The size of the projects (1574.58 kW) exceeds 20% of the planned quantity (1385.072 kW) by 189.508 kW. 
    -- The last accepted project, assuming both projects are competitive, would be system 1. 
    -- The larger of: (a) 150 kW; and (b) 30% of the system size 0.3*174.8 kW; is: 150 kW
    -- The awards exceed the planned quantity by MORE than 150 kW (189.508 > 150).
    Thus system 1 could also be rejected for developer cap reasons.
     

    Maintaining the sizes for systems 1 and 2 at their current levels, the maximum size for system 3 to keep all three systems under the cap when system 3 is the last accepted project would be 1153.960 kW. In that case the sum of all three system sizes is 1731.260 kW, which exceeds 20% of the planned quantities by 346.188 kW, which is equal to 30% of the last accepted system size. Maintaining the sizes of systems 1 and 2 at their current level, the maximum size for system 3 to keep all three systems under the cap when system 3 is NOT the last accepted project would be 957.772 kW. In that case the sum of all three system sizes is 1535.072 kW, which exceeds 20% of the planned quantity by 150 kW.

     



    08/04/2011 in Evaluation of Proposals

  • FAQ-234:
    The ACE Territory Developer Cap is 1,385.072 kW, and there is the provision of Section 5.1.19 margins for developer caps: (a) 150 kW; or (b) if the Program is undersubscribed in the prior Reporting Year, 30% of the system size of the last accepted Proposal associated with that Developer (or any combination of affiliated Developers under the same majority ownership). What is the largest single system size that a developer can bid in ACE Territory?

    The maximum system size for a single Project in ACE's territory for this 2012 RPS Reporting Year is 1,978.674 kW. All projects that have a size that exceeds this maximum will automatically be rejected.

    The planned quantity for ACE is 6,925.359 kW. This maximum size ensures that the size of the Project (1,978.674 kW) does not exceed 20% of the planned quantity (1385.072 kW) by more than 30% of the system (593.602 kW).

    Please note that the above applies in the case where a proponent submits a SINGLE project in the ACE territory. Please see FAQ-235 for additional information if a proponent is submitting more than one project in the ACE territory.



    08/04/2011 in Evaluation of Proposals

  • FAQ-187:
    Assume the following: 1. A bid is not disqualified for improper response or exceeding the developer cap, 2. The bid is below the confidential price limit 3. The EDC goals are not met by the volume of qualified bids. Is the SM required to accept the bid? Or, is there a final review by the SM and EDC where they can reject a price simply because it's an outlier to other prices, even though it's below the confidential price limit?

    The Solicitation Manager does not "accept" or "reject" bids; rather, the Solicitation Manager presents final recommendations to the Board of Public Utilities ("Board") and the Board renders a decision on the results for a solicitation and any awards made under the Program. The final recommendations of the Solicitation Manager are presented to the Board at the conclusion of a review process in which the EDCs, Board Staff, and Rate Counsel participate and provide input. 

    As provided by the Stipulation approved by the Board, the recommendations of the Solicitation Manager include a determination of the competitiveness of bids. The Stipulation states, with respect to the evaluation of the competitiveness of the bids, that this determination will consider, among other things, the lowest SREC price bid, the SACP, and the distribution of SREC prices for all projects submitted. Please see sections 4, 7, and 12 of the Stipulation, which describe this process in more detail. The Stipulation can be found on the Documents page of our web site, under the heading "Documents from the NJ CEP - Utility Financing Programs page".



    02/17/2011 in Evaluation of Proposals

  • FAQ-172:
    For Rounds 1 through 4, there appears to be discrepancies between solicitation results found in the applicable Board Orders approving the results of the solicitations and the information you provide in the summary file for the results by segment (http://www.njedcsolar.com/assets/files/NJEDCSolar_Results_by_Segment_10-8-2010.pdf). For example, the December 2009 solicitation has approximately 6.6 MW awarded according to the Board Order and the summary file lists approximately 5.5 MW awarded.

    Regarding the file that provides results by segment, explanatory notes were inadvertently excluded from this file. We will modify the file to provide these additional notes shortly. These additional notes should read as follows:

    • The amounts provided for the August 2009 and December 2009 solicitations exclude awards that did not proceed to contract;
    • The amounts provided for the March 2010 solicitation may include awards that did not proceed to contract;
    • For the June 2010 solicitation, contract execution was in progress at the time the data was compiled.


    02/14/2011 in Evaluation of Proposals

  • FAQ-171:
    Can you please provide the breakdown of the solicitation results between ACE, JCP&L and RECO for Round 5?

    There is no provision for release of information specific to an EDC. However, the Solicitation Manager does provide the quantities planned for the 2011 RPS Reporting Year (see Table 1 of the RFP Rules) as well as the quantities planned for this upcoming solicitation (see Table 2 of the RFP Rules). The quantities planned for this upcoming solicitation (round 6) represent the unfilled quantities from the first two solicitations for 2011 RPS Reporting Year (rounds 4 and 5). Thus, the quantities that were filled in rounds 4 and 5 are the difference between the quantities planned for the 2011 RPS Reporting Year (in Table 1) and the quantities planned for this upcoming solicitation (in Table 2).



    02/14/2011 in Evaluation of Proposals

  • FAQ-151:
    The Project Proposal Summary Sheet calls for a description of the equipment, including the name of the manufacturer. Is this description binding?

    The description of the equipment should be based on the best information available to the Proponent at the time that the Proposal is submitted to the SREC-Based Financing Program. If the Project receives an award under the Program, information from the Project Proposal Summary Sheet is used to prepare Appendix B to the SREC Purchase and Sale Agreement. The Owner of a Successful Project would provide to the EDC any updated information in the preparation of Appendix B with the understanding that any change in information would be non-material and would not affect in any way the Project's eligibility to participate in the Program or to receive an award. A substitution in the equipment for a similar item would likely be such a non-material change. Any such change should be provided to the EDC prior to the full execution of the SREC PSA.



    02/04/2011 in Evaluation of Proposals

  • FAQ-143:
    If we have two projects under two different special purpose entities, would they be treated separately under the developer cap?

    We examine each situation on a case-by-case basis but generally, any affiliated entities under the same majority ownership are treated collectively under the developer cap.



    01/27/2011 in Evaluation of Proposals

  • FAQ-142:
    Please explain how the bid evaluation will work if the amount of submitted projects exceeds the planned quantity.

    For a given EDC, we will accept bids up to the point where either the Pricing is not competitive, or where the planned quantity is met. If the planned quantity is met first, the rest of the projects are rejected. The planned quantities are maximum quantities approved by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.



    01/27/2011 in Evaluation of Proposals

  • FAQ-140:
    Have there been changes to the bid evaluation process used under the SREC-Based Financing Program?

    There are no program changes that have been approved by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities regarding bid evaluation. Therefore, the Solicitation Manager is still guided by the original Stipulations (dated March 13, 2009 and July 24, 2009) regarding the aspect of bid evaluation. The Stipulations can be found on the Documents page of the web site.



    01/27/2011 in Evaluation of Proposals


Go to Page:    1 (Newest)    2    3 (Oldest)    << Back to FAQ Categories