Common use of SELECTION OF A SHORT LIST Clause in Contracts

SELECTION OF A SHORT LIST. Having ranked Offers by market valuation, including the impact of transmission adders, and having scored the Offers against the non-valuation criteria, the PG&E team decides which Offers to include on the short list. As stated in the solicitation protocol, the team ranks all conforming offers based on net value, then uses scores and information from the non-valuation criteria to decide which Offers to include on the list, and which to exclude. In conditionally accepting the 3 California IOUs’ procurement plans for 2011 RPS solicitations, the CPUC noted that “each utility may apply its own reasonable business judgment in running its solicitation, within the parameters” and guidance provided by the CPUC. This affords PG&E a certain degree of latitude in making decisions about how to use information about criteria such as Project Viability and RPS Goals and preferences such as service territory and on-line date in selecting Offers. Unlike other utilities that employ a weighted average of scores for all criteria as a determinative measure to make selection and rejection decisions, PG&E can, up to a point, use its judgment to select lower-valued Offers or less-viable Offers that have special attributes in meeting RPS Goals, for example.

SELECTION OF A SHORT LIST. Having ranked performed the two-step ranking of Offers by market valuation, including the impact of transmission adders, and having scored the Offers against the non-valuation criteria, the PG&E team decides which Offers to include on the short list. As stated in the solicitation protocol, the team ranks all conforming offers based on net valuevalue (taking into account transmission adders), then uses scores and information from the other non-valuation criteria to decide which Offers to include on the list, and which to exclude. In conditionally accepting the 3 California IOUs’ procurement plans for 2011 2009 RPS solicitations, the CPUC noted that “each utility may apply its own reasonable business judgment in running its solicitation, within the parameters” and guidance provided by the CPUC. CPUC.14 This affords PG&E a certain degree of latitude in making decisions about how to use incorporate information about evaluation criteria such as Project Viability and RPS Goals and preferences such as service territory and on-line date in selecting Offers. Unlike other utilities that employ a weighted average of scores for all evaluation criteria as a determinative measure to make selection and rejection decisions, PG&E can, up to a point, use its judgment to select lower-valued Offers or less-viable Offers that have special superior or unique attributes in meeting RPS Goals, for example. A discussion in the next chapter of this report and in the confidential appendix describes issues that arose in making these trade- offs.