Common use of ADEQUACY OF FEEDBACK FROM PARTICIPANTS Clause in Contracts

ADEQUACY OF FEEDBACK FROM PARTICIPANTS. After arriving at a final short list, PG&E sent e-mails to Participants whose projects were not selected for the short list. Each communication included an opening to engage in a discussion of PG&E’s evaluation. Several non-shortlisted Participants expressed an interest in such a follow-up discussion. Xxxxxx participated in most of these sessions in which the PG&E team debriefed the developers about the evaluation of these rejected proposals. In general these feedback sessions were welcomed by Participants. They created an opportunity for Participants to obtain a clearer view of how PG&E’s evaluation criteria and preferences applied to the specific proposals, and of what factors played a role in the failure to select the proposals. Most Participants, when prompted to offer feedback on PG&E’s solicitation materials and process, had generally positive commentary, including positive ratings for the bidders’ conference, for the solicitation protocol, and for the opportunity to debrief on the outcome of PG&E’s selection. A variety of specific criticisms were offered. The feedback sessions that offered wholly negative commentary focused almost exclusively on developers who contested their proposal’s rejection, rather than any specific, useful feedback on how to improve the solicitation materials or process. Xxxxxx’x opinion is that PG&E’s efforts to seek feedback from non-shortlisted Participants were entirely adequate and quite helpful both to the utility and to those Participants who were willing to take part in a debriefing session. There remain opportunities to obtain more detailed feedback from the shortlisted parties in coming months as the utility and these Participants begin negotiations.

ADEQUACY OF FEEDBACK FROM PARTICIPANTS. After arriving at a final short list, PG&E sent e-mails to Participants whose projects were not selected for the short list. Each communication included an opening to engage in a discussion of PG&E’s evaluation. Several non-shortlisted Participants expressed an interest in such a follow-up discussion. Xxxxxx participated in most of these sessions in which the PG&E team debriefed the developers about the evaluation of these rejected proposals. In general these feedback sessions were welcomed by Participants. They created an opportunity for Participants to obtain a clearer view of how PG&E’s evaluation criteria and preferences applied to the specific proposals, and of what factors played a role in the failure to select the proposals. Most Participants, when prompted to offer feedback on PG&E’s solicitation materials and process, had generally positive commentary, including positive ratings for the bidders’ conference, for the solicitation protocol, and for the opportunity to debrief on the outcome of PG&E’s selection. A variety of specific criticisms were offered. The feedback sessions that offered wholly negative commentary focused almost exclusively on developers who contested their proposal’s rejection, rather than any specific, useful feedback on how to improve the solicitation materials or process. Xxxxxx’x Arroyo’s opinion is that PG&E’s efforts to seek feedback from non-shortlisted Participants were entirely adequate and quite helpful both to the utility and to those Participants who were willing to take part in a debriefing session. There remain opportunities to obtain more detailed feedback from the shortlisted parties in coming months as the utility and these Participants begin negotiations.