Provider Selection for Future Projects. Conducting an RFP for solar PPA services and negotiating a PPA can be a time consuming and complicated process. To the extent possible and permitted by law, most jurisdictions would prefer to go through the RFP experience infrequently. At the same time, the landscape and footprint of a local jurisdiction is always changing, as is solar PV technology itself, which may result in the appearance of new opportunities for solar development, or cast possibilities that were discarded in the past in a new light. This type of new or unrealized potential may be difficult to exploit where it appears on a piecemeal basis, or is otherwise insufficient to merit a new RFP and PPA negotiation process (i.e., scale considerations exist). Moreover, given the changeable nature of some solar incentives, whether scheduled or unscheduled, time may be a significant factor in the decision to pursue new projects. These considerations suggest that it may be in the best interest of an issuer to avoid multiple RFPs, and instead retain a single provider to pursue new projects as they appear or become viable. On the other hand, even if the customer is happy with their existing provider, there always remains the possibility that a better service could be obtained from somewhere else. Moreover, the idea of preserving a competitive environment for the provision of services to the local government has intuitive appeal. Balancing these opposing considerations can be challenging, and local governments have taken a number of different approaches to addressing the conundrum. Frequently, local jurisdictions pursuing installations on a large number of sites have adopted a phased approach to development using a single provider. A typical example of this would be a term agreement (e.g., for 3 years) that establishes timelines and milestones for different groups of sites and, allows new sites to be added as they appear, and requires the selected provider to promptly respond to proposal requests for newly selected sites (e.g., within 30 days). Where the timelines are not met for reasons other than the competence or efforts of the provider, or if a new suite of sites becomes available, the term might be extended once or twice in one-year increments. [see for example the City of San Jose, California: Case Study, the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ County, Maryland: Case Study and the Tucson Unified School District, Arizona: Case Study.] Another method that might be used is to select a short-list of qualified providers through the RFP/RFQ process, negotiate a common set of project documents, and then allow only these providers to compete in limited RFPs for individual projects. The service agreement may take a similar form to that described above, being time-limited in nature with extension options when appropriate. The single provider approach will likely be more suitable for small jurisdictions, where the total number and size of projects is correspondingly small. The multiple provider model is better suited towards larger jurisdictions, such as a major city with hundreds of buildings and many different agencies. By preserving some level of competition, a local government may ultimately receive more attractive offers, and avoid accusations of favoritism for a particular provider. [see for example the City of Cincinnati, Ohio: Case Study.] A somewhat similar set of considerations exists with respect to RFP scale as a whole. An otherwise capable and qualified small provider may simply not have the ability to scale up quickly enough to develop the size of project that might be requested by an RFP from a large local jurisdiction. The benefits of scale can be significant though, and cannot be ignored. This is a difficult question for an issuer that on one hand desires to support smaller, and likely local businesses, while also desiring to achieve the benefits of scale associated with larger procurements. The Cincinnati example noted above provides one alternative, while project grouping coupled with the possible selection of multiple providers can provide another if the proposal evaluation includes special considerations for small or local vendors. One further strategy that might be employed is to require respondents to devise proposals that expressly incorporate the use of local businesses, perhaps in combination with other measures like project grouping. For example, the District of Columbia’s 2014 RFP required respondents to provide a “mentoring” program for local, small businesses in the interest of generating local expertise and helping them establish relationships with larger providers capable of larger projects. [for further details, see the Washington D.C.: Case Study.] 5 Annotated Model Documents The following model documents contain notes as comments within the text. Some of the topics addressed by these comments are worthy of a more lengthy discussion and links to reference materials. Because lengthy explanations are cumbersome to incorporate as footnotes or comments, the more lengthy annotations use cross-references within the model document text. Clicking these cross-references will take users to a supplemental section at the end of each respective model document containing further elaboration on the issue and associated reference materials. 5.1 Annotated Model PPA THE ATTACHED IS A FORM THAT NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED CONSISTENT WITH YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES. NOTHING IN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT, OR ANY OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS, CONSTITUTES LEGAL, TAX, FINANCIAL OR ACCOUNTING ADVICE AND SHALL NOT BE SO CONSTRUED. IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE PARTIES, AND THE PARTIES ARE ENCOURAGED, TO SEEK AND CONSULT THEIR OWN ATTORNEY AND BUSINESS AND TAX ADVISORS REGARDING THE MATTERS CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT. [ ], AS SYSTEM OWNER AND [ ], AS HOST CUSTOMER
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Solar Power Purchase Agreement
Provider Selection for Future Projects. Conducting an RFP for solar PPA services and negotiating a PPA can be a time consuming and complicated process. To the extent possible and permitted by law, most jurisdictions would prefer to go through the RFP experience infrequently. At the same time, the landscape and footprint of a local jurisdiction is always changing, as is solar PV technology itself, which may result in the appearance of new opportunities for solar development, or cast possibilities that were discarded in the past in a new light. This type of new or unrealized potential may be difficult to exploit where it appears on a piecemeal basis, or is otherwise insufficient to merit a new RFP and PPA negotiation process (i.e., scale considerations exist). Moreover, given the changeable nature of some solar incentives, whether scheduled or unscheduled, time may be a significant factor in the decision to pursue new projects. These considerations suggest that it may be in the best interest of an issuer to avoid multiple RFPs, and instead retain a single provider to pursue new projects as they appear or become viable. On the other hand, even if the customer is happy with their existing provider, there always remains the possibility that a better service could be obtained from somewhere else. Moreover, the idea of preserving a competitive environment for the provision of services to the local government has intuitive appeal. Balancing these opposing considerations can be challenging, and local governments have taken a number of different approaches to addressing the conundrum. Frequently, local jurisdictions pursuing installations on a large number of sites have adopted a phased approach to development using a single provider. A typical example of this would be a term agreement (e.g., for 3 years) that establishes timelines and milestones for different groups of sites and, allows new sites to be added as they appear, and requires the selected provider to promptly respond to proposal requests for newly selected sites (e.g., within 30 days). Where the timelines are not met for reasons other than the competence or efforts of the provider, or if a new suite of sites becomes available, the term might be extended once or twice in one-year increments. [see for example the City of San Jose, California: Case Study, the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ County, Maryland: Case Study and the Tucson Unified School District, Arizona: Case Study.] Another method that might be used is to select a short-list of qualified providers through the RFP/RFQ process, negotiate a common set of project documents, and then allow only these providers to compete in limited RFPs for individual projects. The service agreement may take a similar form to that described above, being time-limited in nature with extension options when appropriate. The single provider approach will likely be more suitable for small jurisdictions, where the total number and size of projects is correspondingly small. The multiple provider model is better suited towards larger jurisdictions, such as a major city with hundreds of buildings and many different agencies. By preserving some level of competition, a local government may ultimately receive more attractive offers, and avoid accusations of favoritism for a particular provider. [see for example the City of Cincinnati, Ohio: Case Study.] A somewhat similar set of considerations exists with respect to RFP scale as a whole. An otherwise capable and qualified small provider may simply not have the ability to scale up quickly enough to develop the size of project that might be requested by an RFP from a large local jurisdiction. The benefits of scale can be significant though, and cannot be ignored. This is a difficult question for an issuer that on one hand desires to support smaller, and likely local businesses, while also desiring to achieve the benefits of scale associated with larger procurements. The Cincinnati example noted above provides one alternative, while project grouping coupled with the possible selection of multiple providers can provide another if the proposal evaluation includes special considerations for small or local vendors. One further strategy that might be employed is to require respondents to devise proposals that expressly incorporate the use of local businesses, perhaps in combination with other measures like project grouping. For example, the District of Columbia’s 2014 RFP required respondents to provide a “mentoring” program for local, small businesses in the interest of generating local expertise and helping them establish relationships with larger providers capable of larger projects. [for further details, see the Washington D.C.: Case Study.] 5 Annotated Model Documents The following model documents contain notes as comments within the text. Some of the topics addressed by these comments are worthy of a more lengthy discussion and links to reference materials. Because lengthy explanations are cumbersome to incorporate as footnotes or comments, the more lengthy annotations use cross-references within the model document text. Clicking these cross-references will take users to a supplemental section at the end of each respective model document containing further elaboration on the issue and associated reference materials.
5.1 Annotated Model PPA THE ATTACHED IS A FORM THAT NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED CONSISTENT WITH YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES. NOTHING IN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT, OR ANY OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS, CONSTITUTES LEGAL, TAX, FINANCIAL OR ACCOUNTING ADVICE AND SHALL NOT BE SO CONSTRUED. IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE PARTIES, AND THE PARTIES ARE ENCOURAGED, TO SEEK AND CONSULT THEIR OWN ATTORNEY AND BUSINESS AND TAX ADVISORS REGARDING THE MATTERS CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT. [ ], AS SYSTEM OWNER AND ▇▇▇ [ ], AS HOST CUSTOMER
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Purchase Agreement