Provider Selection for Future Projects Sample Clauses

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 thr...