Scope of Work
4. Should the Sector Mapping Initiative be limited to assets and operations physically located in Massachusetts, or is it acceptable to include out-of-state supply chains, fuels, or infrastructure where they influence in-state decarbonization opportunities?
The recommendations resulting from Scope 4 should focus on assets and operations in MA and within state jurisdiction/authority. However, if/where they influence MA decarbonization opportunities, out-of-state influences/analysis should be considered.
5. Please define/confirm the level of detail MassCEC envisions for the Sector Mapping Initiative? Is MassCEC seeking a quantitative emissions baseline analysis per sector and activity or a market assessment with some quantitative outputs?
MassCEC envisions the Sector Mapping Initiative primarily as a market assessment supported by quantitative outputs where useful.
6. Are there specific aviation or maritime sub‑sectors that MassCEC would like the Initiative to prioritize for near‑term (0–5 year) recommendations, such as ferries, harbor craft, or short‑haul aviation, or any sub‑sectors that should be explicitly excluded?
MassCEC is not dictating sub-sector prioritization for this initiative. One of the objectives of the RFP is to identify the sub-sectors that should be a near-term focus for state interventions.
7. Are Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) and eVTOLs (electric vertical take-off and landing) included in the scope?
Yes, AAM and eVTOLs may be included in the scope.
8. Is there interest in book-and-claim systems as an alternative to physical decarbonization of fuels?
Book-and-claim systems will not be considered within scope for the purposes of this Initiative.
9. Acknowledging the requirement for a final presentation, could you clarify expectations for the primary, detailed deliverables? Specifically, should the 'Final Sector Map' and 'Final Recommendations' be captured in a formal written report to supplement the presentation, or is the slide deck itself intended to be the primary deliverable?
MassCEC intends the slide deck to be the primary deliverable. MassCEC has found slide decks to be an accessible format for a wider audience, though we are open to alternatives. The consultant will also be responsible for creating collateral targeted to different audiences to share these recommendations, such as a one-pager directed to the general public or targeted at legislators and policymakers. [See Task 4F-H]
10. The description of the Initial/Final Sector Maps focuses on infrastructure, policies, and decarbonization technologies. There is no explicit mention of energy efficiency measures: both operational and via technology implementation. Operational measures are a low-barrier decarbonization set of actions that also generally reduce future technology implementation CAPEX. Are we supposed to include energy efficiency measures and technologies within the sector map?
Energy efficiency measures are allowable within the scope of the Initiative given that they are feasible components of near-term steps to emissions reduction and within state jurisdiction.
11. How should applicants interpret the scope with respect to vessels and aircraft, particularly beyond recommendations such as "purchasing electric boats or planes"? For example, is shore‑side power and other infrastructure within scope?
Purchasing an electric boat or plane may be the end result of these larger decarbonization efforts, but the purpose of this RFP is to look into the smaller, incremental steps that need to happen before the purchasing can begin, whether this is seeing that a specific sub-sector is primed for decarbonization right now, or a certain region of Massachusetts is where it should happen. MassCEC is looking for the recommendations that come out of this RFP to be clear pathways and actionable items for the near-term (0-5 years). To the specific question posed here, for example, recommendations related to shore-side power as it relates to charging infrastructure for vessels is within scope. More information on the scope is available in Section III of the RFP.
12. Given that most maritime vessels and aircraft are privately owned, how should applicants address recommendations related to public versus private owners?
The recommendations should be actions that MassCEC or other Massachusetts state agencies have authority or jurisdiction over, regardless of vessel/aircraft ownership. For example, agencies can influence policies or create incentives to make it easier for these private owners to acquire an electrified vessel or aircraft.
13. How does the Initiative scope address maritime trips and flights that leave the state, including internationally?
Exact scope of emissions calculations will be decided during contracting with the selected consultant and in coordination with the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affair's 2035 Clean Energy and Climate Plan emissions modeling process. MassCEC anticipates that there may be some form of coordination with other regional or national, specifically other New England state entities, over this question.
14. What level of effort for the analysis of current maritime and aviation emissions is expected? Are you looking for detailed facility-based inventories or higher-level emission estimates?
We are looking for a higher-level, statewide emissions estimate. It is outside of the scope to do a facility-based inventory. Overall, MassCEC is looking to get a sense of the scale of current maritime and aviation emissions and the potential scale of emissions reductions from the recommendations.
15. Task 2B references the acquisition of datasets. Does MassCEC have existing datasets, data-sharing agreements, or institutional relationships (e.g., with Massport, MassDOT, FAA, USCG) that the Technical Consultant will build on, or should Applicants assume the data acquisition effort starts from scratch?
MassCEC does not currently have ownership of existing datasets, or data-sharing agreements, but could develop data-sharing agreements with or facilitate introductions to other state agencies that oversee relevant datasets. The Consultant will be responsible for identifying and purchasing any proprietary/privately-owned datasets.
16. Task 2B states that dataset ownership will remain with MassCEC. Can MassCEC clarify whether there are restrictions on the types of data that can be acquired (e.g., proprietary commercial datasets requiring licensing), and whether MassCEC has existing procurement vehicles for data acquisition?
MassCEC has not identified any restrictions on the types of data that can be acquired under the Initiative, but would like to note that MassCEC is subject to Massachusetts Public Records Request Law and will work with the Consultant to establish an appropriate procurement vehicle based on needed confidentiality.
17. Are there any non‑public or proprietary datasets owned or controlled by MassCEC or other Massachusetts state agencies that MassCEC expects to incorporate into the sector mapping and emissions analysis, and if so, what level of access would be provided?
See Question 15.
18. While we understand the consultant is responsible for identifying and acquiring all necessary data, to aid in developing an accurate project scope, could MassCEC clarify which relevant datasets (e.g., detailed vessel/aircraft activity, fuel consumption data, existing state-level emissions inventories) it may already have available or can facilitate access to?
See Question 15.
19. Which data will be available to prepare the emissions and energy baseline?
See Question 15.
20. Will a consultant be required to develop new modeling or datasets?
MassCEC does not anticipate that the Consultant will be responsible for developing new modeling or datasets.
21. Does acquiring data sets refer to 1) accessing and manipulating public data sets (e.g., FAA flight data), 2) purchasing proprietary datasets, 3) engaging fleet owners to build bottom-up data sets, or 4) some combination of these approaches?
For the purposes of this Initiative, data acquisition refers to accessing public data sets and/or purchasing proprietary datasets where necessary. MassCEC does not expect the Consultant to build bottom-up datasets. Please refer to Question 15.
22. Are we expected to use a prediction model to fill data gaps for the baseline?
While a prediction model is not required, the selected Consultant will be responsible for providing a reasonable and documented approach to establishing a baseline using assumptions where data gaps exist.
23. What are the guidelines and boundaries for the Emissions Analysis in 2a, including emissions scopes, boundary (within Massachusetts/outside Massachusetts), and calculation framework?
The guidelines and boundaries for the emissions analysis will be expected to align with those currently being developed through the 2035 CECP process. Applicants can reference the 2025/2030 CECP for more information. MassCEC will facilitate coordination between EEA, DEP, and the consultant early in the process.
24. For Task 4A, what kind of output does the agency expect for quantifying the scale of potential emissions reductions? Would this include forecasting decarbonization potential over time?
Through the Initiative, MassCEC is expecting the consultant to provide a baseline emissions analysis for the maritime and aviation sector in Massachusetts. No further forecast modelling is necessary.
25. Regarding the Emissions Analysis (Task 2A), do you have a preference for delivery format?
MassCEC does not have a preference for the delivery format of the emissions baseline. The applicant should propose the delivery format, but it can be noted that a spreadsheet is acceptable.
26. Please clarify what is meant by "current emissions levels." Do you have a period in mind? In our experience, these are usually presented for a predetermined, agreed-upon period (typically months or a year). It's also understood that these are static and not expected to be updated after delivery. Please confirm.
For the "current emissions levels" baseline, the Consultant can plan to account for 2021 to 2025 for any external influences that may skew the data year to year, but MassCEC welcomes alternative proposals. The baseline results will be static and are not expected to be updated after delivery.
27. Is the intent for the Emissions Analysis to be able to display emissions by some / all the metadata categories in the stakeholder map (e.g., does MassCEC want emissions by ownership type or just mode / sub sector?
The priority for the emissions analysis would be a sub-sector breakdown. If possible, ownership type would be useful.
28. The RFP describes the Final Sector Map as a "comprehensive tool." Is there an expected format?
No specific format is expected for delivery of the Final Sector Map; format is up to the Consultant's discretion given that it covers all components noted in the Scope of Work.
29. Will the Initial Sector Map be used to narrow down the potential stakeholders (e.g., smaller ports that are primarily fishing focused that will not impact the state's maritime freight and aviation emissions profile)?
Yes, the Initial Sector Map in Scope 2 should identify and narrow down potential stakeholders to be engaged under Scope 3. The Initial Sector Map should also include the reasoning for engaging the identified stakeholders.
30. Does MassCEC have a complete list of sub sectors, and if so, can that be provided?
MassCEC does not have an official list of sub-sectors for the Maritime and Aviation sectors. One of the goals for the Initial Sector Map is to identify these sub-sectors and the key stakeholders within them.
31. Re: Final Sector Map: Can MassCEC clarify any objectives or outcomes anticipated beyond amassing information?
The primary goal of the Final Sector Map is to amass information, and to create a reference tool for MassCEC and other agencies moving forward in subsequent work in these sectors.
32. What role will MassCEC have in this Initiative, such as making introductions to stakeholders or coordination?
MassCEC will be a close partner throughout this Initiative, with coordination largely taking place during monthly meetings and via email with the selected Consultant. MassCEC will make introductions to other state agencies to coordinate the quarterly taskforce meetings and data sharing. MassCEC is also able to help make introductions to stakeholders in these sectors already contacted during the RFP drafting process, but it should be noted that demonstrated experience or relationships in the MA maritime and aviation sectors are encouraged. The Consultant will be expected to directly engage stakeholders that MassCEC has not yet been in contact with.
33. What role will MassCEC play in facilitating introductions and securing participation from key public and private stakeholders during the interview and roundtable process?
Please refer to Question 32.
34. Can you provide guidance on which meetings, Roundtables, and stakeholder engagements are expected to be in person versus virtual?
Prospective Applicants can assume that monthly meetings with MassCEC will be held virtually. Roundtables are expected to be held in person to facilitate robust conversations. Stakeholder interviews will likely be virtual, though MassCEC anticipates there may be some exceptions, including site visits, depending on stakeholder preference.
35. Re: Taskforce meetings, stakeholder engagement, and Maritime/Aviation Decarbonization Roundtables: Does MassCEC expect bidders to include costs relating to physical space for these meetings (or will it be provided), catering, participant travel costs, and honoraria? What are the expected sizes of each of these stakeholder groups?
Prospective Applicants should include costs relating to securing and identifying physical space for each Roundtable, including catering and travel costs for the Consultant Team. Participant travel costs and honoraria will not be covered by MassCEC or the Consultant. Stakeholder engagement is expected to be largely virtual with the potential for site visits. Taskforce meetings will also be virtual, though if there is a desire for an in-person Taskforce meeting, MassCEC is able to host.
MassCEC anticipates Roundtables to consist of 30-50 participants. Please refer to Question 36 for Taskforce size estimates. Please refer to Question 52 for stakeholder interview size estimates.
36. The RFP states MassCEC will identify Taskforce members for the quarterly meetings. Can MassCEC share which state agencies are expected to participate, and an indicative size of the Taskforce?
The Taskforce is estimated to consist of about 8-10 agencies, with 1-2 representatives from each. MassCEC is still coordinating exact participants.
37. Who will serve on the steering committee for this effort from MassCEC and other core Massachusetts entities (e.g., Massport)?
Please refer to Question 36.
38. Can MassCEC clarify the Taskforce's role: is it advisory, or does it have any formal role in reviewing or approving recommendations?
The Taskforce will hold an advisory role throughout the Initiative and will have a direct role in reviewing recommendations towards the end of the Initiative.
39. Should Quarterly Taskforce Meetings be conducted in person? We assume Roundtables are in-person and additional stakeholder engagement is hybrid.
Quarterly Taskforce meetings are expected to be conducted virtually. If there is a desire for an in-person Taskforce meeting, MassCEC is able to host.
40. The RFP asks that recommendations outline potential impact on and benefits to Burdened Areas. Can MassCEC clarify the expected depth of this analysis? Specifically, should Applicants plan for a quantitative environmental justice assessment (e.g., modeled emissions reduction in designated communities) or a qualitative overlay identifying where decarbonization investments would intersect with Burdened Areas?
MassCEC is expecting a qualitative overlay rather than a quantitative assessment at this stage. Applicants should assess how the selected recommendations may impact or be co-located with Burdened Areas (if applicable) and provide qualitative insight on the benefits or impacts if these recommendations are implemented.
41. For Task 4A, what is the expected scope of the benefits analysis for Burdened Areas?
Please refer to Question 40.
42. How should perspectives in workforce development, environmental justice communities (Burdened Areas) or small operators be reflected in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan and Final recommendations to MassCEC?
For workforce development, MassCEC expects a high-level analysis of the potential employment and upskilling needs and opportunities within maritime and aviation decarbonization. The analysis should be included in the Final Sector Map and the Final Recommendations, if appropriate. MassCEC does not expect exact jobs numbers.
For Burdened Areas, please refer to Question 40.
For small operators, similar to Burdened Areas, perspectives should be included in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan and potential impacts on or benefits to small operators should be included in the Final Recommendations.
43. Which specific actions does MassCEC intend to take using the results of this project, such as launching new funding programs, modifying existing MassCEC offerings, or informing interagency recommendations, and on what decision timeline, within 6 months versus 1–3 years?
Specific outcomes, including timelines and next steps, of this Initiative will be dependent on the nature of the final recommendations resulting from the Scope of Work. MassCEC intends to use the outcomes of this Initiative to determine appropriate next steps and appropriate timeframes for those next steps.
44. How should economic considerations factor into the selection of Final Recommendations for aviation and maritime? Should the scope include budgeting for an economic cost–benefit analysis of the identified measures?
Yes, cost-benefit considerations should be accounted for in the development of recommendations, with a particular analysis of affordability considerations. MassCEC is particularly interested in understanding how the state can bring decarbonization opportunities to cost parity without increasing costs for relevant stakeholders. Applicants should propose an appropriate method for incorporating cost-benefit analyses.
45. Should our work plan aim to have Final Recommendations and presentations by a specific date (for example, Q3 of 2027) such that Final Recommendations can be incorporated into the 2035 CECP? Or are Final Recommendations asynchronous with CECP development?
The Final Recommendations will be asynchronous with the development of the 2035 CECP. Coordination with the CECP will include alignment on emissions modeling and support with CECP maritime and aviation drafting support using the information collected up to that point in time, but MassCEC does not anticipate work being completed by Spring 2027. The specific timeline will be set during contracting with the selected Consultant.
Timeline
46. Is there an approximate schedule, or deadline, for the Initiative?
An estimated award timeline can be found in Section V of the RFP. Consultants should provide a reasonable schedule in their proposal. While there is no hard deadline for this Initiative, MassCEC is expecting the project to begin in September 2026 and end by December 2027.
47. The Initiative Schedule (Section VII) references a one-year deployment, while Task 3F describes CECP Coordination extending into Spring 2027. Can MassCEC clarify the expected contract duration and confirm whether the Spring 2027 CECP Coordination milestone is a firm deadline that the Initiative timeline should be back-planned from?
Please refer to Question 45. The CECP coordination and Final Recommendations will likely be asynchronous.
Budget
48. Is there an approximate budget range for this Initiative?
MassCEC will be conducting a blind bid and is not disclosing the amount of funding allocated to this Initiative. Prospective Applicants can assume that the budget will cover the full project scope.
49. Are travel expenses considered allowable costs?
Yes, travel expenses are considered allowable; please refer to Section IX of the RFP. These should be included in the Applicant's budget.
50. Can MassCEC provide guidance on the anticipated budget range or funding ceiling for the Initiative?
Please refer to Question 48.
51. What is the range of funding available for the project? In other words, what maximum amount can consultants request?
Please refer to Question 48.
52. Does MassCEC have an estimate of engagement volume, Roundtable format, event-cost assumptions, or is it looking to the consultant to provide?
While not set, MassCEC expects roughly 100 interviews as part of stakeholder engagement, though the exact number will depend on the results of the Initial Sector Map. Roundtables will be held in person and can be estimated to include roughly 30-50 stakeholders each, specifically those engaged through Task 3B. However, Applicants are expected to provide their own estimates and assumptions as to stakeholder engagement/event costs, which can then be finalized with MassCEC as part of contracting, if selected.
53. Would MassCEC welcome proposal submissions with multiple budget scenarios, such as high and low scenarios and associated scopes?
Yes, MassCEC would welcome proposal submissions with multiple budget scenarios, provided that each scenario's associated scopes fully address the Initiative's requirements.
54. Do proposed payment milestones need to be specified in the budget submitted with proposals? Or is the deliverables schedule in Exhibit 1 to be finalized after the consultant selection has been made?
Applicants should indicate the total budgets and proposed schedule associated with each Task. The specifics of payment milestones will be set between MassCEC and the selected Consultant during the contracting period based on the proposed schedule.
55. Task 2B asks the consultant to identify and Acquire Datasets. Can we assume that the cost to acquire the datasets is outside of the price the consultant is to provide, as the datasets are not yet identified and the tier of usage is not known?
Consultants should include assumptions in their proposed budget for any anticipated costs to acquire datasets.
Eligibility + How to Apply
56. What are some helpful qualities that MassCEC sees in their ideal applicant?
Section IV of the RFP lists the following qualities of a successful applicant:
Experience with program management;
Technical knowledge of the maritime and aviation sectors;
Demonstrated existing relationships with stakeholders in these sectors is a plus.
Experience with engagement and facilitation across a broad group of stakeholders; and
Ability to handle and analyze large quantities of quantitative and qualitative data and synthesize and present results effectively.
Academic institutions or technology providers would be helpful sub-vendors, however, MassCEC seeks a lead applicant with larger-scale project management experience.
57. Would prior work in other sectors, such as heavy-duty trucking, be considered relevant experience for this proposal?
While there certainly could be some parallels between these sectors, MassCEC would prefer an Applicant with experience in the maritime and aviation industries. For more information on relevant experience for this solicitation, please see "Proposal Requirements" under Section VII of the RFP.
58. Is MassCEC open to modifications to the sample agreement included in the RFP, such as changes in wording, or inclusion of terms if needed?
Yes, MassCEC is open to changes to the sample agreement attached to the RFP. Applicants should submit a red-lined Sample Agreement with their proposal. Upon award, MassCEC and the selected Consultant will enter into contract negotiations. Please note: MassCEC has limited ability to change our standard legal contract terms. Requesting changes to these terms (if selected) will impact timelines for contracting.
59. Will there be a scoring rubric that is shared with applicants?
The selection criteria can be found in Section VII of the RFP.
60. Are we able to submit a proposal as a prime, and be a subcontractor on a second proposal submitted by a different prime organization?
Yes, firms are welcome to be a Lead Applicant on one proposal and a subcontractor on another.
61. We are considering including an external technical subject matter expert based outside the United States who has deep experience in maritime decarbonization technologies and international policy frameworks supporting sector transition. The individual would participate in a limited advisory capacity (independent of the contracted project personnel) such as providing technical input and reviewing analytical outputs prepared by the project team, and would not be responsible for project management or contractual deliverables. All work performed by this expert would be conducted remotely outside the United States. We wanted to confirm whether including such an international expert in this limited remote role would be acceptable under this RFP.
Yes, Applicant Team members who are based outside the U.S. are allowed.
62. Is there a requirement for a portion of the project to be delivered by minority-owned and women-owned businesses?
This is not a requirement for this RFP.
63. In Section IV: Eligibility, the first criterion for successful applicants is "Experience with Program Management." What types of program management experience are of interest to MassCEC for this project?
MassCEC is interested in project management experience that demonstrates the successful management of projects or studies of a similar scale, effective coordination across a team of diverse stakeholders, the ability to manage subcontractors or project partners efficiently, and the ability to meet robust reporting and deliverable requirements on schedule.
64. Will a submitted RFP of up to three organizations (applying as a team) be reviewed?
Yes; MassCEC encourages potential Applicants to form teams and is not placing a strict limit on number of entities/firms allowed on each proposal.
65. In the Proposal Requirements section, item 6 References, it states "References (one (1) page each)". By "References", do you mean reference projects, each limited to one page, or do you simply want three references (contact person, a full address, an email address, and a phone number only, with no project descriptions) on one page? Please clarify.
References should include a contact person, address, email address, and a phone number for three references. This can be included on one page. If an Applicant would like to submit additional information, please refer to Question 72.
66. What format should the RFP response be delivered in: a presentation (PowerPoint) or a written report (Word)?
Responses to the Initiative should be submitted in PDF format; applicants may choose to submit either a slide deck (e.g. PowerPoint) or a written document at their discretion.
67. On page 12, item 2.f states, "If applicable, list MassCEC and other state or federal contracts awarded to the Applicant and/or any subcontractors in the past five (5) years." In the statement above, does "other state...contracts" mean other Massachusetts agency contracts or contracts awarded in other states? ... Further, would MassCEC consider narrowing the scope of the "other state and federal contracts" to include only those contracts for work similar in nature to the Maritime and Aviation Decarbonization Sector Mapping project?
"Other state contracts" should be understood as reference to contracts with other Massachusetts state agencies, not contracts awarded in other states. Applicants can focus on contracts awarded that are similar in scope to this Initiative if providing a full list would be too burdensome, but that is not required.
68. Please advise if there is a file size limit for the proposal submission.
There is no file size limit for proposal submissions.
69. Does MassCEC have a preferred resume length and format?
MassCEC does not have a preferred resume length or format.
70. Should we include documents related to our commitment to inclusive practices in an appendix?
Yes, any documentation relating to commitment to inclusive practices may be included in an appendix.
71. Do you also want documentation of inclusive practices from major subcontractors?
Documentation of inclusive practices is only required for Lead Applicants, but is encouraged for any subcontractors, if applicable.
72. In addition to the three projects used for references, is it possible to provide an Appendix containing a set of short project descriptions that document the full range of the team's capabilities relevant to this assignment?
Yes, information on the Applicant's previous projects is allowed as a supplement to the required proposal components.
73. Should we provide a reference for a subcontractor that is covering a significant portion of the scope? If so, does that count as one of the three required references? (Item 6, p 13)
References are only required for lead applicant, but are encouraged for any subcontractors.
74. Terms and conditions: Is section 23 of the agreement applicable?
Clause 23 of the services agreement will not be applicable under this Initiative. Contract terms can be negotiated post-Applicant selection, and applicability of clauses can be discussed then.
75. Does MassCEC have a preference of whether firms use or do not use AI-generated content in the development of the proposal? If firms disclose the use of AI-generated content in their proposal, will those firms be put at a disadvantage in the selection process? Is there a preference for or against the use of AI in the project deliverables?
MassCEC has no preference whether the applicant does or does not use AI-generated content in the development of their proposal, assuming all content accurately reflects Applicant capabilities; however, any such use must be disclosed. Applicants will not be disadvantaged in the selection process for disclosing such use.
