KEY INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR ROL ES Sample Clauses

KEY INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR ROL ES. To comply with the requirements ordered by the CPUC, PG&E retained Xxxxxx Seco Consulting to serve as IE for the 2011 competitive solicitation for renewable resources, providing an independent evaluation of the utility’s Offer evaluation and selection process. The CPUC stated its intent for participation of an IE in competitive procurement solicitations to “separately evaluate and report on the IOU’s entire solicitation, evaluation and selection process”, in order to “serve as an independent check on the process and final selections.”4 More specifically, the Energy Division of the CPUC has provided a template to guide how IEs should report on the 2011 RPS competitive procurement process, outlining four specific issues that should be addressed: • Describe the IE’s role; • Did the IOU do adequate outreach to potential bidders, and was the solicitation robust? • Was the IOU’s LCBF methodology designed such that bids were fairly evaluated? • Was the LCBF bid evaluation process fairly administered? The structure of this report, setting out detailed findings for each of these issues, is organized around the template provided by the ED.

KEY INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR ROL ES. The CPUC stated its intent for participation of an IE in competitive procurement solicitations to “separately evaluate and report on the IOU’s entire solicitation, evaluation and selection process”, in order to “serve as an independent check on the process and final selections.”1 The Energy Division has provided a standard template for IEs to follow when reporting about RPS transactions that are filed for approval through an advice letter, specifying that such an IE report cover topics including: 1. Describe the IE’s role. 2. Did the IOU do adequate outreach to participants, and was the solicitation robust? 3. Was the IOU’s least-cost, best-fit (LCBF) methodology designed such that offers were fairly evaluated? 4. Was the LCBF offer evaluation process fairly administered? 5. Describe the fairness of the contract-specific negotiations. 6. Does the contract merit CPUC approval? The structure of this report organized around the first and the last two issues; because the amendment did not result from a competitive solicitation the second issue is not on point. Xxxxxx has reported on PG&E’s methodology in prior IE reports on RPS contracts; other than PG&E updating its input parameters the methodology has not changed. 1 CPUC Decision 06-05-039, May 25, 2006, “Opinion Conditionally Approving Procurement Plans for 2006 RPS Solicitations, Addressing XXX Benchmarking Methodology”, page 46.