# CARB proposal

## Quick Links

- [Event Page](https://caleprocure.ca.gov/event/3900/0000030218)
- [Google Drive Folder](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_abNU-P0Jo37bu5GoIY0e_SsbmR8aNcQ?usp=drive_link)
- [Technical Portion (Proposal Text)](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vv5wP-UGOcbFTZ6XeYkkC9xOz3s5W9VprDI-SDdUsCU/edit?usp=sharing)
- [RFP](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RTTWvZQMJ8pVRqNoVZeDAB7MHG0Gk3qC/view?usp=drive_link)

## TODO

### Chris

- [ ] Review and update detailed timeline ([Work Plan](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PQLGCZeE5MpVdm7mvkRWoikihS-HRVfiXkUI_kgEFHE/edit#gid=2083607661))
- [ ] Table of datasets (and/or include in figure?)
- [ ] Initial conditions
- [ ] Drivers (met, soil)
- [ ] Validation
- [ ] Review Model section
- [ ] Review Workflow section

### David

- [ ] review Mike's proposals and steal text

- [ ] Add 'limitations of approach' section
- what inputs we can / can't sense
- validation data
- model structure
- [ ] Add citations

### Before submission

- [ ] Fill out minimum qualifications response
- [ ] Check all references
- [ ] Check all fig / table numbers and legends
- [ ] Review for typos and runons
- [ ] Check that all acronmyms are defined upon first use

### Proposal Requirements

- [ ] Minimum Qualifications
- [ ] write
- [ ] review
- [ ] Title Page
- [x] write
- [ ] Cover Letter / Letter of Commitment
- [x] write
- [ ] Summary
- [ ] write
- [ ] review
- [ ] Minimum Qualifications Response
- [ ] Required Attachments
- [ ] 1 Required Attachment Checklist
- [x] 2 (NA - do not return) Draft standard agreement
- [ ] 3 Proposer References Form
- [ ] 4 Payee Data Record STD 204
- [ ] 5 Payee Data Record STD 205 (if applicable)
- [ ] 6 Contractor Certification Clauses
- [ ] 7 California Civil Rights Laws Certification
- [ ] 8 Darfur Contracting Act Certification
- [ ] 9 Bidder Declaration GSPD-05-105
- [x] 10 (NA - do not return) CA DVBE Bid Incentive
- [ ] 11 Contractor Cost Sheet
- [ ] 12 Detailed Response for Minimum Qualifications
- [ ] 13 COVID-19 Prevention Contractor Self Certification
- [ ] 14 Conflict of Interest & Confidentiality Statement
- [ ] References
- [ ] Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Statement
- [ ] Subcontracts / Subcontractors
- [ ] Description of each person or firm and work to be done by each subcontractor in technical proposal
- [ ] all subcontractors identified in Attachment 9
- [ ] Technical Portion
- [ ] Management Plan
- [ ] Methodology Approach to Work
- [ ] Work Plan and Work Schedule
- [ ] Personnel / Experience
- [ ] include resume for each technical staff person
- [ ] Page Headers and Page Numbering
- [ ] Cost Proposal Requirements
- [ ] Cost Detail
- [ ] Attachment 11 - firm fixed costs
- [ ] Attachment 2 - specific tasks
- [ ] Page Headers and Page Numbering
- [ ] Requirements without a clearly identified location:
- [ ] "All businesses that are required to be registered with the California Secretary of State must be registered prior to date of Agreement award. Evidence of registration shall be submitted with the proposal."

### Done

- [x] decide on DSSAT + GHG vs bespoke model
- [x] discuss w/ Mike and Rob about role, PEcAn support
- how much we use PEcAn as is vs required development
- application of DA?
- [x] ask Istem for an overview of what she has set up
- [x] Detailed timeline of tasks and time required for each one (table in Sheets?)

Cropland data layer

CA Statewide crop modeling https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/statewide-crop-mapping

### Assemble proposal components

## "five key" deliverables (yes, numbered to six in RFP text):

1. Conceptual framework for modeling and monitoring workflow
2. Simplified biogeochemical model
3. Monitoring data to run model, remotely sensed
4. Monitoring workflow, accurate to county level
5. Future projections under climate/management change scenarios
6. Hand off whole system to CARB

## Questions for program due Feb 27

To: Sakinah Carter <[e-mail]>
CC: Wayne Roberson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions about RFP No. 23ISD006, California Cropland Monitoring and modeling framework

Good Day,

I am writing on behalf of Pools and Fluxes LLC, a consortium of experienced cropland modelers and ecosystem forecasting researchers. We are eager to submit our bid for the California Cropland Monitoring and Modeling Framework, RFP 23ISD006.

While preparing our proposal, we have found areas where we would appreciate further clarification.

We particularly want to highlight the timeline for submission, which presents a particular challenge relative to the complexity of the project requirements and the time it will take to coordinate a team.

Questions:

1. **Timeline extension:**: Would CARB consider extending the submission timeline? An extension by even a few weeks to March 26th would enable our team and other interested bidders to provide a stronger and more detailed proposal.
2. **Relation to NWL:** Could you please clarify the expected relationship between the monitoring system described in the RFP and the existing NWL? In particular, does CARB have a preference whether data from the 2018 NWL is used for validation of the new model, or if the new inventory is kept independent of NWL?
* **Model Development vs Modification:** The RFP mentions "developing" or "creating" a model in some places and "using a simplified" model in others, implying modification of an existing model. Could you please clarify whether using an existing model (with or without modifications), rather than creating a new one, would be considered responsive?
* **Scope of management actions:** The management actions to be included in modeling are stated as "conventional agriculture as well as all healthy soils practices that are funded by the CDFA, stacking of these practices, and organic projects". Since the RFP is clear that the project is focused on "annual and perennial cropland", are we correct to interpret this as incorporating HSP categories I (cropland) and II (orchard or vineyard) but not category III (grazing land)?
* **Minimum model complexity:** Is there a lower limit to the degree of model simplification? As a hypothetical example, would a model with carbon fluxes that are sensitive to management but with N2O and/or CH4 predictions derived from county-level emission factors be considered responsive?

Thank you for considering our questions. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Chris Black
Pools and Fluxes LLC

## Points to address in narrative:
* what's the right level of agonomic detail?
* Two possible approaches to model:
* Pick one and commit to it (but point out that PEcAn is structured to facilitate multi-model usage)

* Emphasize that PEcAn workflow is applicable across models, explicitly defer choice of model
* How much development is needed on the monitoring side, and of what kind? Is this primarily a change detection challenge?
* Are there management / climate drivers needed by current model that are fully *un*available by RS?
Shooting from the hip:
probably doable: tillage, broad crop type, approximate duration of fallow and active seasons
probably not doable: nutrient management

* model options:
- CLM
- assume anything not already *explicitly* open-source is off table (APEX, BGC?)
- ecosys?
- does Agro-IBIS have GHGs?
- DSSAT + bgc module
- IAP-N-GAS?