HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.con.020.258/30/2021 CDD
Contract Information
Contract Number
Project Name
Contractor
Budget Line Item 10014140.531000.10328
Procurement Method:
Type:
Contract Start Date
Contract End Date
Contract Type
Retainage
If this is a new contractor, please enter the New Vendor information into Munis for workflow approval.
Contact Information:
Department
County Representative Michael Port County Representative
Phone (970) 379-2031
Provide a brief description of the Contract or Change Order:
Contract Value Summary:
$ 409,500.00
$ -
$ -
$ 409,500.00
Manager's Office
Sustainable Aviation Fuel feasibility study
Original Contract Amount
Previous Change Order/Amendment Amount
This Change order/Amendment amount
Contract Total
No
Regional Sustainable Aviation Fuel Feasibility Study
Damiana Serafini; d/b/a Savia Consulting
$409,500.00
Additional Budget Line
Item(s)
(Please fully allocate New Contract Total)
$-
$-
$-
$409,500.00
Formal
Services/Maintenance
3/18/2025
3/17/2026
New Contract
020.25
Pitkin County
Procurement Cover Sheet
Please complete the Contract Cover Sheet when the contract/task order is complete and fully executed.
Return all Contract Cover Sheets and Contracts/Change Orders/Amendments/Task Orders to Procurement
RFP # 020.25 Rev. 2025.03.18 CDD
NOTICE OF AWARD
Date: March 18, 2025
To: Damiana Serafini d/b/a Savia Consulting Damiana Serafini, Renewable Energy & Sustainable Development Expert 1 Lufberry Lane, Apt #5
Norwalk, CT 06851
RE: RFP 020.25 – Regional Sustainable Aviation Fuel Feasibility Study
The County, having duly considered the Proposal submitted on January 27, 2025 for the work
covered by the Contract Document titled Regional Sustainable Aviation Fuel Feasibility Study in the amount of Four-Hundred and Nine-Thousand Five-Hundred dollars ($409,500.00), and it
appearing that the qualifications, pricing, and information in your Proposal Form is fair,
equitable, and to the best interest of the County, hereby issues this notice of award to your
organization and accepts your offer for this project.
In accordance with the terms of the RFP Document, your organization will be required to execute the Contract within Ten (10) days from receipt of this notice or within Ten (10) days following any necessary contract negotiations, whichever shall occur sooner.
In addition, your organization is required to furnish in the said time a complete W-9 along with any Certificates of Insurance evidencing compliance with the requirements as set forth in the RFP and Contractual documents.
PITKIN COUNTY
________________________________________________
!#COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE#! Date
CONTRACTOR
Receipt of the above Notice of Intent to Award is hereby acknowledged
________________________________________________
!#VENDOR SIGNATURE#! Date
Apr-08-2025
Michael Port
Climate Action Analyst
Apr-10-2025
SAF Expert - Savia Consulting
Damiana Serafini
Contract # 020.25 Revision: 2024.10.08 iso8601 CDD
iso 8601
1
PITKIN COUNTY CONTRACT FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES
THIS CONTRACT, made March 18, 2025 by and between the Board of County Commissioners
of Pitkin County, Colorado, 530 E. Main St., Suite #302, Aspen, CO 81611, (hereinafter called
the “County”) and Damiana Serafini d/b/a Savia Consulting, 1 Lufberry Lane, Apt #5,
Norwalk, CT 06851 (hereinafter called the “Contractor”) to perform the following work: Regional
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Feasibility Study (“Project”).
I.Term of Contract: The term of this Contract is from March 18, 2025 to March 17, 2026.
At the expiration of the initial term, the contract may be extended for additional terms
of one (1) year, or through the completion of the Project, by the express written consent
of both parties.
II.Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor shall assist the County with the research, data
collection and validation, coordination of stakeholders, preparation and/or presentation
of reports, and any other activities deemed necessary to assess the feasibility of
constructing, supplying, operating, and ongoing/future demand of a regional
sustainable aviation fuel processing facility. Contractor shall work closely with County
staff, regional partners, identified stakeholders, and/or the FAA in the development of
project plans, reports, and objectives as further detailed in the attached documentation,
Attachment A – RFP Documents and Attachment B – Savia Proposal Documents.
Contractor is bound and obligated to notify Project Lead if, at any time throughout the
Project, sufficient, or reasonably sufficient, evidence or information is discovered
which would suggest that a determination of viability may be concluded without further
continuation of efforts or tasks. Contractor shall provide Project Lead with periodic
reports to display viability, or lack thereof, upon completion of each task in accordance
with the Description of Work and Deliverables in Attachment B – Savia Proposal
Documents.
III.Compensation and Expenses, Invoicing, Payment and Offset. The County shall
compensate Contractor for its services in accordance with the Project Budget and
Schedule set out in Paragraph II. It is expressly understood and agreed that in no event
will the total compensation and reimbursement to be paid hereunder exceed the sum of
Four-Hundred and Nine-Thousand Five-Hundred dollars and Zero cents ($409,500.00)
for all services rendered. By contract or amendment, the County and Contractor may
Contract # 020.25 Revision: 2024.10.08 iso8601 CDD
iso 8601
2
reallocate the budget among project tasks if the total budget amount remains
unchanged. Contractor shall invoice for the project monthly based on hours worked,
with payment expected within thirty (30) days of invoice. Any payment by the County
may be offset by any amount the Contractor owes the County for any reason.
IV. County’s Exclusive Ownership of Work Product. Drawings, specifications,
guidelines and other documents prepared by Contractor in connection with this
Contract shall be the property of the County. However, Contractor shall have the right
to utilize such documents in the course of its marketing, professional presentations, and
for other business purposes. Contractor assigns to County the copyrights to all work
prepared, developed, or created pursuant to this Contract, including the right to: 1)
reproduce the work; 2) prepare derivative works; 3) distribute copies to the public; 4)
perform the works publicly; and 5) to display the work publicly. Contractor shall have
right to use materials produced in the course of this Contract for marketing purposes
and professional presentations, articles, speeches and other business purposes.
V. Pitkin County’s Obligations. Pitkin County shall administer this Contract through
a County Representative. Michael Port, Climate Action Analyst will manage the project
as the County’s Representative. In the event that Michael Port is not available, an
authorized designee shall assume the County Representative’s duties. The services
provided and products delivered by the Contractor under this Contract will be subject
to review by the County’s Representatives, or a designee, for compliance with
Contractor’s obligations prior to final payment.
VI. Termination Prior to Expiration of Contract Term. The County has the right to
terminate this Contract, with or without cause, by giving written notice to the
Contractor of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Such notice
shall be given at least ten (10) days before the effective date of such termination. In
such event all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies and reports prepared by
the Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall become the County’s property. Contractor
shall be entitled to receive compensation in accordance with the Contract for any
satisfactory work completed pursuant to the terms of this Contract prior to the date of
termination. Notwithstanding the above, Contractor shall not be relieved of liability to
the County for damages sustained by the County by virtue of any breach of the Contract
by the Contractor.
VII. Independent Contractor Status.
A. The parties to this Contract intend that the relationship between them contemplated
by the Contract is that of independent contractor. Contractor, and any agent,
employee, or servant of Contractor shall not be deemed to be an employee, agent,
or servant of Pitkin County.
B. Contractor is not required to offer his services exclusively to Pitkin County under
this Contract. Contractor may choose to work for other individuals or entities
Contract # 020.25 Revision: 2024.10.08 iso8601 CDD
iso 8601
3
during the term of this Contract, provided that the basic services and deliverable
products required under this Contract are submitted in the manner and on the
schedule defined under this Contract.
C. Contractor warrants that all work produced will conform to all applicable industry
standard of care, skill and diligence in the performance of Contractor’s obligations
under this Contract.
D. Contractor shall not attempt to oversee or supervise the work or actions of any
Pitkin County employee, servant or agent in the course of completing work under
this Contract.
E. Contractor is not entitled to any Workers’ Compensation benefits through Pitkin
County and is responsible for payment of any federal, state, FICA and other income
taxes.
VIII. Assignability. This Contract is not assignable by either party. Any use of
subcontractors by the Contractor for performance of this Contract must be accepted in
writing by the County.
IX. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Contract shall be held to be invalid
or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Contract shall remain valid and
binding upon the parties hereto.
X. Integration and Modification.
A. This Contract represents the entire and integrated Contract between the County and
the Contractor and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or contract,
either written or oral. This Contract may be amended only by written contract
signed by both the County and the Contractor.
B. The County may, from time to time, request changes in the scope of services of the
Contractor to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including the increase or
decrease in the amount of the Contractor’s compensation, which are mutually
agreed upon between the County and the Contractor, shall be in writing and upon
execution shall become part of this Contract.
XI. Indemnity.
A. The Contractor agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and, not excluding the County's
right to participate, defend the County, its subsidiary, parent, associated and/or
affiliated entities, successors, or assigns, its elected officials, trustees, employees,
agents, volunteers, and any jurisdiction or agency issuing permits for any work
included in the project, hereinafter referred to as indemnitee, from all suits and
claims, including attorney's fees and cost of litigation, actions, loss, damage,
expense, cost or claims of any character or any nature arising out of the work done
in fulfillment of the terms of this Contract or on account of any act, claim or amount
arising or recovered under workers' compensation law or arising out of the failure
of the Contractor to conform to any statutes, ordinances, regulation, law or court
Contract # 020.25 Revision: 2024.10.08 iso8601 CDD
iso 8601
4
decree. It is agreed that the Contractor will be responsible for primary loss
investigation, defense and judgment costs where this Contract of indemnity applies.
In consideration of the award of this Contract, the Contractor agrees to waive all
rights of subrogation against the County its subsidiary, parent, associated and/or
affiliated entities, successors, or assigns, its elected officials, trustees, employees,
agents, and volunteers for losses arising from the work performed by the Contractor
for the County.
B. The Contractor further shall investigate, process, respond to, adjust, provide
defense for and defend, pay or settle all claims, demands, or lawsuits related hereto
at its sole expense and shall bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, even
if the claim, demand or lawsuit is groundless, false or fraudulent.
C. Accessibility Indemnification
Contractor shall indemnify, save, and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties,
against any and all costs, expenses, claims, damages, liabilities, court awards and
other amounts (including attorneys’ fees and related costs) incurred by any of the
Indemnified Parties in relation to Contractor’s failure to comply with §§24-85-
101, et seq., C.R.S., or the Accessibility Standards for Individuals with a
Disability as established by OIT pursuant to Section §24-85-103 (2.5), C.R.S.
XII. Accessibility.
The Contractor shall comply with and the Work Product provided under this Contract
shall be in compliance with all applicable provisions of §§24-85-101, et seq., C.R.S.,
and the Accessibility Standards for Individuals with a Disability, as established by
OIT pursuant to Section §24-85-103 (2.5), C.R.S. Contractor shall also comply with
all State of Colorado technology standards related to technology accessibility and
with Level AA of the most current version of the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG), incorporated in the State of Colorado technology standards.
The County may require Contractor’s compliance to the State’s Accessibility
Standards to be determined by a third party selected by the County to attest to
Contractor’s Work Product and software is in compliance with §§24-85-101, et seq.,
C.R.S., and the Accessibility Standards for Individuals with a Disability as
established by OIT pursuant to Section §24-85-103 (2.5), C.R.S.
XIII. Insurance. Contractor and subcontractors shall procure and maintain until all of their
obligations have been discharged, including any warranty periods under this Contract
are satisfied, insurance against claims for injury to persons or damage to property which
may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the
Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
The insurance requirements herein are minimum requirements for this Contract and in
no way limit the indemnity covenants contained in this Contract. The policies shall
include, or be endorsed to include, the following provision: On insurance policies
Contract # 020.25 Revision: 2024.10.08 iso8601 CDD
iso 8601
5
where the County is named as an additional insured, the County shall be an additional
insured to the full limits of liability purchased by the Contractor even if those limits of
liability are in excess of those required by this Contract.
The County in no way warrants that the minimum limits contained herein are sufficient
to protect the Contractor from liabilities that might arise out of the performance of the
work under this Contract by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees, or
subcontractors. The Contractor shall assess its own risks and if it deems appropriate
and/or prudent, maintain higher limits and/or broader coverages. The Contractor is not
relieved of any liability or other obligations assumed or pursuant to the Contract by
reason of its failure to obtain or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or
types. Commercial General Liability Completed Operations coverage must be kept in
effect for up to three (3) years after completion of the project.
A. Coverage and Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall provide coverage with limits
of liability requirements provided that the coverage is written on a “following form”
basis.
1) Statutory Workers’ Compensation: Colorado statutory minimums
a. Policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the County.
b. This requirement shall not apply when a contractor or subcontractor
is exempt under Colorado Workers’ Compensation Act AND when
such contractor or subcontractor executes the appropriate sole
proprietor waiver form.
Minimum Limits:
Coverage A (Workers’ Compensation) Statutory
Coverage B (Employers Liability) $ 500,000
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
2) Commercial General Liability – ISO 1CG 0001 form or equivalent.
(With County named as an additional insured)
Minimum Limits:
General Aggregate $ 2,000,000
Products/Completed Operations Aggregate $ 2,000,000
Each Occurrence Limit $ 1,000,000
Personal/Advertising Injury $ 1,000,000
Fire Damage (Any One Fire) $ 50,000
Medical Payments (Any One Person) $ 5,000
Coverage to include:
• Premises and Operations
Contract # 020.25 Revision: 2024.10.08 iso8601 CDD
iso 8601
6
• Explosions, Collapse and Underground Hazards
• Personal / Advertising Injury
• Products / Completed Operations
• Liability assumed under an Insured Contract (including defense costs assumed under
contract)
• Independent Contractors
• Designated Construction Project(s) General Aggregate Limit, ISO CG 2503 (1997
Edition or equivalent)
• Additional Insured—Owners, Lessees or Contractors Endorsement, ISO Form 2010
(2004 Edition or equivalent)
• Additional Insured—Owners, Lessees or Contractors Endorsement, ISO CG 2037
(2004 Edition or equivalent)
• The policy shall be endorsed to include the following additional insured language
on the Additional Insured Endorsements specified above: “County, its subsidiary,
parent, associated and/or affiliated entities, successors, or assigns, its elected
officials, trustees, employees, agents, and volunteers named as an additional insured
with respect to liability and defense of suits arising out of the activities performed
by, or on behalf of the Contractor, including completed operations”.
3) Auto Liability: Bodily injury and property damage for any owned,
hired and non-owned vehicles used in the performance of this Contract.
Minimum Limits: Statutory
Coverage Bodily/Property Damage (Each Accident) $ 1,000,000
4) Special Coverages (check as appropriate and insert amount):
a. ☐ Performance Bond $
b. ☐ Professional Errors and Omissions
c. ☐ Aircraft Liability
d. ☐ Owner’s Protective
e. ☐ Builder’s Risk
f. ☐ Boiler and Machinery
g. ☐ Loss of Use Insurance
h. ☐ Pollution Liability
i. ☐ Crime, including Employee Dishonesty Coverage, or Fidelity
Bond
B. Proof of Insurance:
1) Each insurance policy required by the insurance provisions of this
Contract shall provide the required coverage and shall not be suspended,
voided or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice has been
given to the County, except when cancellation is for non-payment of
premium, then ten (10) days prior notice may be given. Such notice shall
be emailed directly to Procurement@pitkincounty.com. If the insurance
Contract # 020.25 Revision: 2024.10.08 iso8601 CDD
iso 8601
7
carrier will not provide the required notice, the Consultant/Contractor and
or its insurance broker shall notify the County of any cancellation, or
reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance within seven (7) days of
receipt of insurers’ notification to that effect. Simultaneously with the
Certificates of Insurance, the Contractor shall file with the Project Lead a
certified statement as to claims pending against the required coverages,
reserves established on account of such claims, defense costs expended and
amounts remaining on policy limits.
2) In addition, these Certificates of Insurance shall contain the following
clauses:
a. The contractor’s insurance shall be primary and non-contributory with
any insurance or self-insurance purchased by the County.
b. The insurance companies issuing the policy or policies hereunder shall
have no recourse against the County of Pitkin for payment of any
premiums or for assessments under any form of policy.
c. Any and all deductibles or self-insured retentions in the above-
described insurance policies shall be assumed by and be for the
amount of, and at the sole expense of the Contractor.
d. Location of operations shall be: “all operations and locations at which
work for the referenced Project is being done.”
3) Certificates of Insurance for all renewal policies shall be delivered to
the County’s Representative at least fifteen (15) days prior to a policy’s
expiration date except for any policy expiring on the expiration date of this
Contract or thereafter.
4) The County reserves the right to request and receive a copy of any
policy and any policy endorsement at any time during the term of this
Contract.
XIV. Exemptions and Preferences. All purchases of construction or building or any other
materials for this Contract shall not include Federal Excise Taxes or Colorado State or
local sales or use taxes. Pitkin County is exempt from such taxes under registration
numbers 98-02624 and 84-78000-5k.
XV. Records. The Contractor shall maintain comprehensive, complete and accurate
books, records, and documents concerning its performance relating to this Contract for
a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Contract and the County shall
have the right within the three (3) year period to inspect and audit these books, records
and documents, upon demand, in a reasonable manner and at reasonable times, for the
purpose of determining, by accepted accounting and auditing standards, compliance
with all provisions of the Contract and applicable law.
Contract # 020.25 Revision: 2024.10.08 iso8601 CDD
iso 8601
8
XVI. Contract Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Contract was made in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is
agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado.
XVII. Attorney’s Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the
provisions of this Contract, the substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs
and reasonable attorney’s fees.
XVIII. Governmental Immunity. Contractor agrees and understands that Pitkin County is
relying on and does not waive, by any provision of this Contract, the monetary
limitations or terms (presently $150,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or
any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental
Immunity Act, 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise
available to Pitkin County or any of its officers, agents or employees. Further, nothing
in this Contract shall be construed or interpreted to require or provide for indemnification
of the Contractor by the County for any injury to any person or any property damage
whatsoever which is caused by the negligence or other misconduct of the County or its
agent or employees.
XIX. Current Year Obligations. The parties acknowledge and agree that any payments
provided for hereunder or requirements for future appropriations shall constitute only
currently budgeted expenditures of Pitkin County. Pitkin County’s obligations under
this Contract are subject to Pitkin County’s annual right to budget and appropriate the
sums necessary to provide the services set forth herein. No provisions of the Contract
shall constitute a mandatory charge or requirement in any ensuing fiscal year beyond
the then current fiscal year of Pitkin County. No provision of the Contract shall be
construed or interpreted as creating a multiple-fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other
financial obligation of Pitkin County within the meaning of any constitutional or
statutory debt limitation. This Contract shall not directly or indirectly obligate Pitkin
County to make any payments beyond those appropriated for Pitkin County’s then
current fiscal year. No provisions of this Contract shall be construed to pledge or create
a lien on any class or source of Pitkin County’s moneys, nor shall any provision of this
Contract restrict the future issuance of Pitkin County’s bonds or any obligations
payable from any class or source of Pitkin County’s money.
XX. Notice. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing
and shall be provided by electronic delivery to the e-mail addresses set forth below and
by one of the following methods 1) hand-delivery or 2) registered or certified mail,
postage pre-paid to the mailing addresses set forth below. Each party by notice sent
under this paragraph may change the address to which future notices should be sent.
Electronic delivery of notices shall be considered delivered upon receipt of
confirmation of delivery on the part of the sender. Nothing contained herein shall be
Contract # 020.25 Revision: 2024.10.08 iso8601 CDD
iso 8601
9
construed to preclude personal service of any notice in the manner prescribed for
personal service of a summons or other legal process.
with copies to:
Pitkin County Attorney’s Office
530 E. Main St., Suite #301
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Email: Attorney@pitkincounty.com
To Pitkin County:
Michael Port
530 E Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Email: Michael.Port@PitkinCounty.com
To Contractor:
Damiana Serafini d/b/a Savia Consulting 1 Lufberry Lane, Apt #5 Norwalk, CT 06851
Phone: +34 (603) 844-867
Email: damiana.serafini@gmail.com
Contract # 020.25 Revision: 2024.10.08 iso8601 CDD
iso 8601
10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Contract as of the date first set out herein
above.
DAMIANA SERAFINI d/b/a SAVIA CONSULTING
________________________________________________
!#VENDOR SIGNATURE#! Date
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
_________________________________________________
!#DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE#! Date
COUNTY MANAGER APPROVAL:
________________________________________________
!#COUNTY MANAGER#! Date
Michael Port
Apr-08-2025
Climate Action Analyst
Damiana Serafini
Apr-10-2025
SAF Expert - Savia Consulting
Deputy County Manager
Rich Englehart
Apr-10-2025
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
1
PUBLIC NOTICE
Pitkin County is accepting proposals for the:
Pitkin County Regional Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) Feasibility Project
More information is available online at www.BidNetDirect.com/Colorado.
Any and all questions, or requests for clarification, must be submitted by 4:00 PM MT on January 13, 2025. Questions and requests for clarification will only be accepted via
email at procurement@pitkincounty.com.
Proposal documents must be uploaded to the BidNet Direct website no later than 2:00 PM MT on January 24, 2025.
Published in the Aspen Daily News: 12/23/24 and 12/30/24.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
2
PITKIN COUNTY Regional Sustainable Aviation Fuel Feasibility Project Table of Contents REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL I. INTRODUCTION 3
II. COUNTY BACKGROUND 3 III. SCOPE OF WORK 4 A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12 IV. SELECTION PROCESS 12 A. SUBMITTALS 12
B. TIME SCHEDULE 14 C. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHING 15 D. SELECTION COMMITTEE 16 E. SAMPLE CONTRACT 17 PROPOSAL FORM 18
INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS 21
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
3
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PITKIN COUNTY REGIONAL SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL FEASIBILITY PROJECT GENERAL INFORMATION TO PROPOSERS
ISSUED: December 17, 2024 DUE: January 24, 2025 by no later than 2:00 PM MT
I. INTRODUCTION
Pitkin County as the lead agency is qualifying interested parties for the provision to explore the feasibility of generating sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) locally to
serve Western Slope airports. This partnership is seeking to assess the ability to work with regional public/private partners that will support the eventual production of SAF for regional airports with sustainable feedstock that will create and support local jobs, and maximize GHG emission reduction in air travel. II. COUNTY BACKGROUND Covering 975 square miles, Pitkin County is located in the heart of the White River National Forest, surrounded by the spectacular peaks of the central Rocky Mountains. Pitkin County is located in Colorado with the county seat of Aspen. Pitkin County includes the communities of Aspen, Snowmass, Woody Creek, Old
Snowmass, Meredith, Thomasville, Redstone and portions of the town of Basalt. As public servants, we work in the public trust to ensure quality of life and experience in Pitkin County for present and future generations. Organizational Values: Pitkin County embraces the following values to promote
public trust and confidence in County Government. Stewardship: We strive to leave our natural environment, community, public assets, and organization in better condition than we found them for current and future generations. Ethics: We hold ourselves to high standards of honesty and dependability in the
conduct of County business. Excellence: We are committed to providing quality services that are accessible, accurate and innovative to meet our community’s needs. Collaboration: We work together as employees and with citizens and other government, non-profit and private sector organizations helping each other
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
4
succeed in promoting and achieving the public’s goals. Open Communication: We are committed to listening to our citizens and partners and to giving accurate and timely information. Positive Work Environment: We appreciate dedicated and knowledgeable employees and support their professional and personal growth. Additional information about the County may be found on the County’s website at: https://pitkincounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/21997/PC_brochure_2020_FFO_digital
III. SCOPE OF WORK Market There are three major commercial and general aviation airports and a fourth airport that has the same fixed based operator as Pitkin County. Depending on the supply,
the demand may be able to be increased with the addition of more airports within the region. In addition, on a long-term basis the inclusion of a major hub in nearby Salt Lake Utah could be assessed. The feasibility will need to contain a fuel demand forecast and capacity assessment
for the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, Rifle/Garfield Regional airport, Grand Junction Regional Airport and the Eagle Regional Airport. Each airport has emission goals that all include the use of SAF. Reaching out to each of the Airport Directors at those locations will be the avenue in which detailed information can be accessed.
A financial analysis will need to address affordability. In order for the airports to switch from their current SAF methods of delivery, the economics must pencil out. Will it be feasible to provide SAF from a facility in Mesa County to the
participating airports when all of the conditions are applied, including costs of
transportation. What will the range of costs look like for each particular airport? If additional airports are added into the mix, will that have an impact on the overall cost for delivering the product.
The intent is for each airport to use commercially reasonable efforts to source SAF
locally (Western Slope) as available, on a commercially equivalent and competitive basis to minimize transportation footprint. Project Overview
Pitkin County and Aspen/Pitkin County Airport are collaborating with Eagle
County and Eagle County Regional Airport, Mesa County and Grand Junction Regional Airport, the Rifle/Garfield County Airport, and Grand Junction Economic Partnership for a feasibility study to support the development of a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production facility on the Western Slope of Colorado.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
5
Map of the participating partners locations:
Background Information and Project Goals Passenger enplanements, aircraft operations, jet fuel usage, and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue to rise, hindering progress on climate
action goals. This necessitates a technological shift to curb emissions while
maintaining the economic benefits brought to the region by air travel. Enplanements at each airport are projected to grow annually, in turn increasing flights and emissions. SAF is the most viable method to lowering aviation-related emissions long-term. Proceeding with planning and feasibility activities now is
crucial given the current availability of public and private capital and financial
incentives to advance future stages of a SAF facility project and support its operation. While some production pathways remain an emerging technology, SAF production has already proven to be economically and technologically feasible and is seen as the aviation industry’s best viable option for lowering emissions.
Constructing a SAF production facility to serve regional airports will advance GHG reduction goals, improve local air quality, promote climate-responsible travel and support clean energy jobs. SAF utilization can reduce lifecycle GHG emissions by up to 99% (based on ICAO Rules of Thumb for agricultural residue pyrolysis)
compared to conventional jet fuel, and waste to SAF conversion can provide a
solution to reduce refuse by diverting organic materials from landfills. SAF can also reduce the climate impact of persistent contrails and produces less air pollutants than conventional jet fuel, promoting healthier local air quality. The SAF facility will also create additional benefits beyond climate action including creating
temporary and long-term jobs, bolstering the domestic energy supply chain,
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
6
decoupling flight prices from the market dynamics of fossil fuel price fluctuations and other positive economic impacts. Partners Pitkin County - Covering 975 square miles, Pitkin County is located in the heart of the White River National Forest, surrounded by the spectacular peaks of the central Rocky Mountains. Pitkin County is located in Colorado with the county seat of Aspen. Pitkin County includes the communities of Aspen, Snowmass, Woody
Creek, Old Snowmass, Meredith, Thomasville, Redstone and portions of the town of Basalt. As public servants, we work in the public trust to ensure quality of life and experience in Pitkin County for present and future generations. Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) – The Airport is a single runway, primary
commercial service airport located approximately three (3) miles northwest of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at an elevation of 7,837-feet. ASE is Colorado’s third busiest commercial service airport, enplaning approximately 325,000 passengers annually. The Airport handles approximately 55,000 aircraft operations, of which approximately 80-percent are classified as general aviation. The Airport has a mix
of year-round and seasonal commercial air service provided by United Airlines, American Airlines, and Delta Airlines. The Airport has one FBO, and extensive general aviation jet activity, particularly during the winter and summer seasons. Below are the most current fuel numbers for the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport
(ASE).
12-Month Rifle/Garfield County Airport Jet Fuel Gallons Uplifted
AV Gas Jet Fuel
Airlines
Jet (General
Aviation)
May-23 - 66,719 108,387
Jun-23 - 365,621 518,765
Jul-23 8,049 363,600 788,766
Aug-23 - 404,170 688,437
Sep-23 - 310,525 590,856
Oct-23 92,932 321,712
Nov-23 3,963 124,859 169,989
Dec-23 - 338,322 678,606
Jan-24 4,197 744,860 517,063
Feb-24 560,977 736,514
Mar-24 693,574 702,758
Apr-24 301,693 153,415
16209 4,367,852 5,975,268
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
7
• Rifle/Garfield County Airport – 2,000,000 Gallons
Not included in the initial overall evaluation are Gunnison and Montrose Regional Airports. These are potential users if it is determined that the feedstock can produce more supply than the demand of the airports contained in this study. Eagle County - Encompassing an area of 1,692 square miles, Eagle County is a
diverse and dynamic region in the mountains of Colorado. The county seat, Eagle, anchors a collection of vibrant communities including Vail, Avon, Minturn, Red Cliff, and Gypsum. Framed by the soaring peaks of the Gore and Sawatch Ranges, Eagle County is a haven for outdoor enthusiasts, renowned for world-class skiing, pristine rivers and lakes, and abundant hiking and biking trails. From the bustling
energy of Beaver Creek to the quiet beauty of Sylvan Lake State Park, Eagle County offers a remarkable range of experiences. Eagle County Government employs approximately 500 individuals and is committed to improving the quality of life and success of our community in three key areas: Create a Resilient Economy, Protect our Mountain Ecosystem, and Support Our Workforce.
Eagle County Regional Airport - Eagle County Regional Airport (EGE) is a commercial service airport in the central Rocky Mountains, located in Gypsum, Co and approximately four miles west of the City of Eagle. The airport is owned and operated by Eagle County. The airport has a single asphalt runway (7/25) that is
9,000 feet long by 150 feet wide. Annual enplanements will reach approximately 280,000 in 2024, with annual operations nearing 55,000. 2025 Airline partners include American, Delta, United, Frontier, and Alaska Airlines. Frequent activities at EGE include business/corporate flying, recreational flying, and military training. The airport is also used for aerial wild land/firefighting and emergency medical
evacuations. Below are the most current fuel numbers for the Eagle County Regional Airport (EGE).
Mesa County – Mesa County, Colorado is located along the western border of Colorado and is named for the large mesas within the County, most notably the
Jet A -PRIVATE SAF Jet A 100LL - PRIVATE Contract Fuel Net Jets Jet Edge Military Airlines
May 2023 69,643.0 0.0 5,753.6 37,691.0 36,684.0 0.0 21,384.0 35,608.0
June 2023 110,129.0 1,249.0 7,888.40 78,683.0 67,622.0 0 27,749.0 63,190.0
July 2023 146,144.0 1,110.0 7,964.4 180,388.0 81,981.0 0.0 30,994.0 62,975.0
August 2023 192,628.0 0.0 7,106.4 4,166.0 133,593.0 89,575.0 28,583.0 50,281.0
Sept 2023 116,818.0 2,650.0 7,919.9 125,860.0 85,929.0 0.0 35,409.0 36,816.0
Oct 2023 87,751.0 0.0 6,765.7 70,525.0 47,731.0 0.0 6,395.0 17,686.0
Nov 2023 80,021.0 0 4,496.0 58,177.0 35,721.0 0.0 12,684.0 20,891.0
Dec 2023 198,325.0 0.0 4,166.8 205,206.0 137,549.0 0.0 31,397.0 335,814.0
Jan 2024 218,570.0 0.0 3,826.0 273,230.0 143,959.0 0.0 27,699.0 613,144.0
Feb 2024 241,006.0 0.0 3,705.6 283,171.0 183,120.0 0.0 20,921.0 549,358.0
Mar 2024 290,586.0 0.0 4,523.3 294,143.0 160,558.0 0.0 26,196.0 601,145.0
Apr 2024 82,450.0 0.0 5,019.2 69,613.00 48,774.0 0.0 18,995.0 113,538.0
TOTAL 1,834,071.0 5,009.0 69,135.3 1,680,853.0 1,163,221.0 89,575.0 288,406.0 2,500,446.0
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
8
Grand Mesa, the largest flat top mountain in the world. Mesa County is also well known for its fruit orchards, wineries, and vast recreational opportunities, including the Colorado National Monument (CNM), the Dominguez- Escalante National
Conservation Area (NCA), and the McInnis Canyons NCA. The county seat is Grand Junction, the largest city between Denver and Salt Lake City, which serves as a hub for commerce, health services, higher education, transportation, and recreation for western Colorado and eastern Utah. Surrounding communities include the city of Fruita and the incorporated towns of Palisade, Collbran, and De
Beque and rural communities of Gateway, Whitewater, Molina, Glade Park, Mesa, Loma, and Mack. The most densely populated urban area outside of Grand Junction includes unincorporated Clifton, the Redlands, and Orchard Mesa. Covering 3,341 square miles, Mesa County is home to more than 156,000 residents. Grand Junction Regional Airport – Grand Junction Regional Airport (GJT) is the primary airport serving Grand Junction, Colorado, and the surrounding Western Slope region. Located about 4 miles from downtown Grand Junction, the airport offers both domestic and regional flights, with connections to major hubs like Denver and Salt Lake City. The airport is served by airlines including
American Airlines, United Airlines, and Delta Air Lines. The airport features modern amenities, including a terminal with passenger services and parking, and plays an important role in regional connectivity. Below are the most current fuel numbers for the Grand Junction Regional Airport
(GJT).
Grand Junction Economic Partnership (GJEP) - Helps new and current businesses grow and discover opportunities for innovation, transforming the western region and Mesa County. GJEP recruits and provides development
Military AV Gas Jet A
May-23 40,403 9,278 69,052
Jun-23 102,301 9,531 104,735
Jul-23 138,412 12,134 112,921
Aug-23 95,061 10,889 100,372
Sep-23 118,639 14,475 125,901
Oct-23 207,190 11,568 63,938
Nov-23 42,757 8,828 68,658
Dec-23 50,440 9,251 77,064
Jan-24 66,550 8,165 102,251
Feb-24 91,423 8,431 74,267
Mar-24 94,086 7,762 103,174
Apr-24 81,150 11,159 61,610
1,128,412 121,471 1,063,943
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
9
opportunities to businesses in the cities of Grand Junction, Palisade, Fruita, and surrounding regions. As a private non-profit incorporated organization, we provide free business services and operate with the support of our community, investors,
and economic development partners. Our mission is to enhance the economic vitality in Colorado’s Grand Junction area, creating a strong and diverse economy, and an improved quality of life. We do this through creating quality jobs and expanding capital investment through the attraction, expansion and retention of primary business. Requested Products and Services The Partners are seeking an in-depth study that will determine if it is feasible to construct, operate, and support a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production facility located within Mesa County in Western Colorado. The study should evaluate both
blended drop-in SAF delivery to regional airports within the area as well as shipment of blended drop-in SAF or SAF blend stocks to other regions. The feasibility study is broken out into multiple tasks, listed below. The proposer can recommend additional scope or scope changes if deemed relevant. Task 1: Feedstock Availability Analysis Task 1 will quantify the existing feedstocks available on the Western Slope. This should include all major and projected feedstocks which may be viable for HEFA, alcohol-to-jet, gasification/Fischer-Tropsch, power-to-liquid, and pyrolysis. For
distributed feedstocks, particularly forest residues, the analysis should include spatial quantification of feedstock densities to inform feedstock transportation efforts required. This assessment should evaluate feedstock for the technology expected in the near term (2-3 years out) and near future (3-5 years out). If possible,
a 5-30 year assessment given the magnitude of the scope of investment.
The following is a non-comprehensive list of potential feedstocks to be included. Feedstocks which do not meet ICAO sustainability criteria or which do not have a pathway to achieve at least 50% lifecycle carbon reduction should not be included
in the analysis.
● Waste and residue lipids ● Existing ethanol production or supply chains for ethanol ● Forestry residues and wood-processing waste ● Agricultural waste
● Municipal solid waste
● Water for electrolysis and land for renewable energy ● Point source and waste gas CO2 ● Potential for growing oilseed cover crops ● Potential for growing cellulosic cover crop
Deliverable:
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
10
• Feedstock availability analysis, including narrative, quantified feedstock availability, assumptions and uncertainty, and graphical
summaries.
• Timeframe for Completion
• Task 1 - Cost
Upon Task 1 completion, a check-in will be required to review and determine if the
feedstock availability and sources are acceptable to meet the need for demand. If Task 1 does not create a viable SAF conversion pathway, the remaining tasks will be assessed to determine if this feasibly effort continues to move forward.
Task 2: Viable SAF Conversion Pathways for Available Feedstock Task 2 will evaluate SAF production pathways and production volume based on the feedstock availability findings from Task 1. For the purpose of this task, include emerging lab and pilot scale technologies, which may enable aggregation of
disparate feedstocks into a single production facility. This includes LanzaTech’s gas fermentation process for alcohol to jet production and SynTech BioEnergy’s gasification technology for Fisher-Tropsch production. Viable production pathways identified in this task will inform Task 5.
Deliverable:
• A matrix listing each viable technology, including proven providers for each technology, showing comparisons that include the feedstocks used,
total SAF production based on feedstock availability from Task 1, estimated lifecycle carbon reduction, coproducts (assuming the process is optimized for jet fuel), and other relevant differentiators between pathways. Task 3: Fuel Usage Projections Task 3 will build upon the current Jet A fuel demand values provided in the introduction, expanding to quantify jet fuel usage for the entire Western Slope region. It should also include projections for future growth of Western Slope aviation.
Deliverable:
• Tabulated current fuel usage and fuel demand forecast, including assumptions and uncertainties.
Task 4: Existing Jet Fuel Supply Chain and SAF Transportation Needs Task 4 will analyze the existing Western Slope jet fuel supply chain to better understand how existing supply chain mechanisms can be utilized to efficiently deliver SAF. This task should evaluate SAF blending facility requirements,
transportation of blended drop-in SAF to Western Slope airports, and transportation of blended drop-in SAF or SAF blend stock to existing SAF blending and usage
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
11
facilities beyond the Western Slope. Additionally, this task should include a cursory analysis of transportation options for coproducts.
Deliverable:
• Report outlining existing jet fuel transportation and storage methods used for Western Slope airports, opportunities for utilizing this existing supply chain for blended SAF and SAF blend stock transportation, and
identification of gaps and additional infrastructure required to enable SAF utilization at Western Slope airports, with specific’s related to the partner Airports, as well as transportation to other regions. Task 5: Site Evaluation
The Proposer will work with the Grand Junction Economic Partnership (GJEP) and Mesa County to identify potential project sites in Mesa County. It should focus on Mesa County as the hub to support the unique opportunities the Western Slope provides to SAF production, such as existing oil and gas workforce and infrastructure, as well as evaluate challenges and mitigations for these challenges.
Task 5 should address the following aspects at a minimum: ● Proximity to/transportation needs for feedstock sources ● Industrial area infrastructure needs ● Regulatory requirements
● Community acceptance ● Site utilities ● Existing infrastructure applicable to SAF production, fuel refinement, or transportation ● Workforce availability
Deliverable:
• Summary report of potential SAF production site(s) with a summary of possible site development needs.
Task 6: Economic Viability Analysis This analysis will evaluate whether it will be economically feasible to provide SAF from a facility in Mesa County to the Western Slope partner airports and other
regions, including costs of transportation.
Recommendations to support economic viability will be explored including, but not limited to: ● Capital costs and project financing options and models
● Operating costs, including feedstock costs
● Additional regional partnership opportunities ● Short-term and long-term job creation ● Estimated production volumes based on market need
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
12
● Projected minimum selling price comparison on the Western Slope compared to other markets based on federal, state, and local incentives available
Deliverable:
• Summary report of economic viability, including assumptions and uncertainties. Task 7: Executive Summary The reports for each of the tasks shall be collated into a single report, along with the creation of an Executive Summary. The Executive Summary will be used by the Partners for public distribution. All information, including the Executive
Summary, the body of the report, and any attachments or exhibits will be subject to the Colorado Open Records Act. Deliverable:
• Aggregated report including executive summary, as well as standalone
executive summary. Schedule The submission should contain an overall schedule, including total project duration
and duration of each individual task. This can be provided as a Gantt Chart or in
plain text. The scope of work contains at least one milestone off ramp after Task 1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Pitkin County expects that any Contractor providing goods or services will do so in
compliance with Pitkin County policies, including, but not limited to, tobacco use
policies, public health orders, permitting requirements, construction ordinances, building access and safety requirements, and Pitkin County standards of conduct. Pitkin County’s elected Board of County Commissioners have identified climate
action and carbon footprint reduction as a priority for County projects. Pitkin
County encourages all proposers to be environmentally conscious when preparing their proposal documents, making travel plans, printing materials, selecting fleet vehicles, designing/updating facilities systems, qualifying subcontractors, investing, and/or any other business activities wherever a less environmentally
impactful solution may or could exist. IV. SELECTION PROCESS The County is required by the terms of the Pitkin County Procurement Code to conduct a competitive selection process to select a Contractor for the above-
described proposal. This process shall be through formal proposals submitted in
response to this Request for Proposals. A. SUBMITTALS
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
13
1. Proposer shall submit proposals for this Service as outlined in the Request for Proposals and Scope of Services, or an alternately developed plan as developed by Proposer in response to and in accordance with this Request for Proposals and
Information to Proposers attached hereto. Proposal Format: Each response shall be 8½” X 11” in size. Font, Times New Roman, size shall be no smaller than 12 point. A sample contract has been included for review and Template Contract revisions, if any, must be uploaded as a separate
file with any changes clearly highlighted. Template Contract change requests will
not be reviewed until scoring has been completed and, as such, any information that could be considered material to your proposed response to the solicitation should not be included in the sample Contract. Proposals may include pages up to 11”x17” size, as needed.
a. The proposal must contain name, address, daytime phone number(s), and e-mail address for person(s) to whom additional selection process requests should be communicated;
b. A proposed approach (basic description of how Proposer will proceed with this Service), items that will be contained in a table of contents, timetable for the Service, and proposed method of compensation for services rendered;
c. A statement of Qualifications of the Proposer and any subcontractors anticipated to perform under the awarded contract; d. References, especially those for significantly similar projects
with local governments;
e. A completed Proposal Form (may indicate “In Attached Documents” for Approach and Qualifications/References sections of the provided Proposal Form, if desired. The Proposal Form,
however, will not be considered complete if any and all addenda
are not acknowledged and the form has not been signed); f. A summary of the capabilities of existing tools and methods as well as details on the maturity and validation of existing tools and
methods. If new tools and methods are expected to be developed to
support this project, a summary of the planned tools and methods should be provided along with plans for peer review or validation. g. List of all subcontractors (including qualifications);
h. Fee schedule of standard rates for any work that may not be included in provided Scope of Work, as applicable
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
14
2. Proposer may be required to supply additional information upon request, or to make additional submissions under secondary selection criteria, if necessary.
3. Any and all questions or comments shall be submitted via email to procurement@pitkincounty.com no later than 4:00 PM MT on January 13, 2025. All requests must have the email subject line, “RFP 020.25 Pitkin County Regional Sustainable Aviation Fuel Feasibility Project. Request for
Clarification and Questions.” All questions, comments and answers provided shall be shared with all Proposers via addendum posted on BidNet Direct. Addendum(s) will include the requests for clarification and questions, as written by the Proposer.
4. All Proposals must be uploaded to the BidNet Direct website. Proposals will not be accepted in any other form or manner. 5. During the Request for Proposal selection process, all proposals shall remain confidential. The entire selection process (procurement) file shall be
available to the public (which includes all Proposers) after an agreement is approved by the County, except those items for which confidentiality has been requested in writing by the Proposer, and providing that the County Attorney has reviewed and determined this to be the properly confidential under the State Open Records Act and other relevant statutes and
regulations. B. TIME SCHEDULE
The County will endeavor to use the following timetable: December 17, 2024 Request for Proposals publicly advertised, posted on website (www.bidnetdirect.com/colorado)
January 9, 2025 Non-Mandatory pre-proposal meeting will be held at 1:00pm MST via Google Meet using the following virtual meeting access information:
Google Meet joining info
Video call link: https://meet.google.com/hqs-jcgn-iod Or dial: 9961-324-929 1(US) + PIN: 803 769 579 # More phone numbers: https://tel.meet/hqs-jcgn-iod?pin=7989881500951
Please submit your RSVP with planned attendee list via email to procurement@pitkincounty.com by no later than 24-hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
15
January 13, 2025 Proposer’s request for clarification and questions due via email to procurement@pitkincounty.com by 4:00 PM MT
January 17, 2025 County’s response to request for clarification and questions posted on BidNet Direct via addendum January 24, 2025 PROPOSALS MUST BE UPLOADED TO BIDNET
DIRECT BY 2:00 PM MT Week of January 27th, 2025 Meeting of Selection Committee; checking of references as necessary; requests for additional information or
clarifications, if necessary; scheduling of interviews, if necessary February 14, 2025 Issuance of Notice of Award to top-ranked proposer February 19, 2025 Notices sent to unsuccessful proposers March 3, 2025 Anticipated Contract Start Date TBD by Proposal Contract Completion Date
C. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHING Selection of the "short-listed" Proposers to be interviewed and/or the selection of the top-ranked Proposer will be based upon the following criteria and relative
importance (or as the same may be amended or supplemented by published
secondary selection criteria, if any): 1. Approach to Project 30% The Proposer shall prepare a brief statement as to their intention to address:
A. The Project Scope of Work
B. The Project Schedule 2. List of Similar Work 20% The Proposer shall submit examples of projects of similar size and scope,
specifically with local governments when available.
3. Estimated Cost of Services, including Reimbursable Expenses 40% A. The Proposer shall list all costs assumed necessary to successfully complete and/or deliver the provided scope of work, services,
and/or goods, including, but not necessarily limited to:
i. Labor and material expenses ii. Reimbursable expenses for mileage and/or administrative services
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
16
iii. Miscellaneous expenses B. The Proposer shall provide a list of standard fees/rates and material markup rates to include with the Contract for any
additional services or goods that may not be covered in the awarded Contract; billable only as incurred and as agreed upon in advance by mutual signing of a change order. C. The submission should contain cost breakdowns by task. If total cost of the proposal exceeds budget, a subset of Tasks may be
awarded. D. Any expansion of scope based on initial results from the stated tasks must be reviewed by the partners and pursued under subsequent task orders.
4. References 10% The Proposer shall provide a list, including contact name and information, of references/prior clients, especially local, state and federal government. D. SELECTION COMMITTEE Communications between Proposer and any member of the selection committee
during the selection process, except when and in the manner expressly authorized by the Request for Proposals, is prohibited. Violation of this restriction is grounds for disqualification from the process.
Voting Members of the Selection Committee: Rich Englehart–Deputy County Manager
Dan Bartholomew–Pitkin
County Airport Director Diane Jackson–Pitkin County Deputy Airport Director Michael Port – Climate Action
Analyst
Nonvoting counsel to the Selection Committee: Chris Davis- Procurement Ry Neiley – County Attorney
Jacquelyn Francis – AAB
Chairperson Atlantic Aviation- TBD Representative
Jeff Shroll – Eagle County Manager Todd Hollenbeck – Mesa County Manager
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
17
E. SAMPLE CONTRACT A sample of the Pitkin County Contract for the Provision of Services is included as Attachment A. The Proposer must present any exceptions to the standard
contract language, if any, with their proposal, included as a separate document. If changes are not requested at the time of proposal submission, the County shall consider that terms and conditions are accepted by proposer. Requests for Contract alterations, modifications, additions, or deletions will not be entertained following proposal submission. Submittal of contract change requests is for
County’s information only and will not be reviewed until selection committee scoring and vendor selection has been completed; contract language change requests will not disqualify any proposer or be evaluated for partiality. This opportunity is offered so proposers may familiarize themselves with standard County terms and requirements, and change requests that are submitted at the
time of proposal allow the County to expedite the consideration of such requests during the award process so as to avoid delays in contracting. As mentioned in Section IV.A, proposers should not include any information specific to their proposed approach, pricing, delivery schedule, etc. when
submitting language change requests as this information will not be reviewed prior to final selection of a top-ranked proposer. Failure of proposer to review and abide by this guidance and any lack of conveyance of such information to the selection committee shall be construed as an error on the behalf of the proposer and not on behalf of the County or the selection committee.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
18
PROPOSAL FORM
Proposal Time: 2:00 PM MT Proposal Date: January 24, 2025 From:
Phone E-mail Address: To: THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
c/o Procurement 530 E Main Street, Suite #304 Aspen, CO 81611 For: RFP 020.25: Regional Sustainable Aviation Fuel Feasibility Project
Pursuant to a request by the Pitkin County Commissioners, the undersigned Proposer having examined this Request for Proposals (RFP), including familiarization of the site and/or the conditions of the proposed Service environment, including the availability of materials and labor hereby proposes to furnish all labor, materials, supplies, applicable
permits, services, and supervision required to provide a completed product as detailed in this RFP and adjoining documentation for the sum of:
Task 1 - $ ______________________
Lump Sum not to exceed (Including Task 1 $) ________________________ Task 1 Completion Date - _________________ Total Project Completion Date - __________________
Fee Schedule(s) for this project and any applicable work that may not have been included in the Scope of Work but may be necessary for successful completion must be included in the proposal documents.
Approach, Qualifications, and References may be submitted on your own proposal form;
please indicate “In attached documents” for any items omitted herein. A completed
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
19
proposal form including, at minimum, acknowledgement of all addenda and signature/corporate seal is required for proposals to be considered responsive.
Statement and Detailed Approach to Service:
Qualifications of Proposer: Please insert names address, phone numbers and description of similar Service for Reference Checks.
1.
2.
3.
It is further understood that the right is reserved by the County to reject any and all proposals and it is agreed that the proposals may not be withdrawn for a period of ten (10)
days from specified time for receiving proposals.
The Proposer acknowledges receipt of Addenda Nos. . The right is reserved to waive any informalities and to reject any Proposal.
(Type/Print name under all signatures) Dated this day of , 2025
(Corporate seal) PROPOSER:
SIGNATURES: If the proposal is being submitted by a Corporation, the Proposal Form should be signed by an officer, i.e. President or vice-president. The signature of the
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
20
officer signing shall be attested to by the secretary and properly sealed. If the proposal is being submitted by an individual or a partnership, the proposal shall so indicate and be properly signed.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
21
INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS FOR PITKIN COUNTY CONTRACTS
1. a. A "Proposal" is a responsive, conforming, unconditional, complete, legible and properly executed offer on the Pitkin County Proposal Form to do the work called for
in the Request for Proposals (“RFP”). b. Proposals must be submitted electronically in PDF format and submitted at the time
and place designated in the RFP. Electronic submissions must be clearly marked as a "sealed proposal" with the Service name and the name, contact person, mailing address and telephone number of the Proposer. The County reserves the right to request verification of any original or electronic signature at any time before issuing a Notice of Award. c. It shall be the responsibility of the Proposer to ensure that the Proposal is in proper form and in the County's possession by or before the scheduled time and date of public
Proposal opening. Proposals will not be accepted after the scheduled time and date of opening. Any Proposals received late will be returned to the Proposer unopened, if possible. In the event that it is impossible to determine who the late Proposer is unless
the envelope is opened, the envelope will be opened, the address determined, and the envelope and Proposal returned immediately to the Proposer.
d. If specified in the Request for Proposals, parties who request packages of proposal documents will be required to pay a fee for the document package. All parties who request packages must provide the name of the potential Proposer, along with the
name of a contact person, address, telephone number, and email address for the purpose of dissemination of Addenda or additional proposal information.
e. If a mistake is made or discovered at or after the public opening, the County reserves the right to determine which party made the mistake and whether the mistake is material and, after these determinations, the County, in its sole discretion, shall make the decision whether to accept or reject the Proposal. No advantage shall be taken by either party of manifest clerical errors or omissions in the Proposal documents or the Request for Proposals (and plans and specifications). All Proposers are required to notify the County immediately of any errors of omissions that may be encountered. (See 2.a. and 2.c., below).
f. The signer of the Proposal must initial any alteration or erasure. If provided on the required Proposal Form, the proposal price of each item must be stated in numerals
and words; in case of a conflict, the words will control. In case of conflict between the indicated sum of any addition of figures and the correct sum, the correct sum will control.
g. No reimbursement will be made by the County for any costs incurred in the preparation of a statement of qualifications, Proposals, or attendance at a site
inspection, pre-bid conference or interviews. h. No person, firm, corporation or other entity shall be allowed to make, file or be
interested in more than one Proposal for the same work, unless alternate proposals are called for. A person, firm, corporation or other entity who has submitted a sub-proposal to Proposer, or who has quoted prices on materials to a Proposer, is not
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
22
hereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or quoting prices to other Proposers.
2. a. If any person contemplating submitting a Proposal is in doubt as to the true meaning of any part of the Drawings, Specifications or other Proposal or Contract Documents,
or finds discrepancies, errors, ambiguities, inconsistencies, incompleteness or omissions in the Drawings or Specifications or the proposal process, he/she must submit to the Procurement Officer a written request for an amplification, clarification,
explanation, interpretation or correction thereof. Failure to do so shall constitute: (1) acceptance by the Proposer of the Drawings, Specifications or other Proposal or Contract Documents as is, and (2) a waiver by the Proposer of any and all claims arising, or that might arise, out of such discrepancies, errors, ambiguities, inconsistencies, incompleteness or omissions. b. Proposers may propose substitute materials or techniques if such substitution is equal to or better than the materials or techniques described in the RFP and if the substitution
has been submitted in writing at least ten (10) days prior to the public Proposal opening. The burden of proof of equality or superior quality is on the Proposer. If accepted as equal by the County in its discretion, the substitute will be designated as
an alternative on a formal addendum available to all Proposers three (3) days prior to the deadline for Proposal submission, when possible. If approval of any substitute materials and/or processes has not been provided by County prior to the deadline for
proposal submission, proposers may elect to submit an alternate bid with separate pricing and rationalization for the alternate materials and/or approach. County, at its sole discretion, will determine if the alternate meets the needs of the respective project.
c. Any amplification, clarification, explanation, interpretation or correction of the documents will be made only by written Addendum duly issued and a copy of the
Addendum will be mailed or delivered to each person receiving a set of the Proposal Documents. Delivery, as used in these Instructions, shall include electronic delivery through e-mail, facsimile, web-posting or other electronic means. Neither the County nor the Procurement Officer will be responsible for any information, representations, explanations or interpretations of the Contract Documents not in written addenda. d. The County reserves the right to call a pre-proposal conference; if called and conducted, a summary of the pre-proposal conference will be mailed or electronically
delivered to all parties receiving a set of Proposal documents. e. On request, the County will provide each Proposer access to the site to conduct, at
Proposer's sole cost, such inspections, tests and investigations as each Proposer deems necessary for submission of a Proposal. No information provided by County representatives at such a site inspection shall be deemed a waiver of the requirements
of 2.a. and 2.c., above. f. Any Addenda issued during the time of the Proposal process, or forming a part of the
Proposal Documents, shall be covered in the Proposal, and shall be considered a part of the RFP. Receipt of each Addendum shall be acknowledged in the Proposal.
g. If specified in the RFP, a request for qualifications may precede the RFP process.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
23
3. a. Each Proposal, if required by the Proposal Documents, shall be accompanied by a certified check or bid bond in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, in an amount
specified, payable without condition to the County as a guarantee that the Proposer, if awarded the Contract, will promptly execute the Agreement in accordance with the Proposal, and will furnish, if required by the Proposal, good and sufficient bonds for
the faithful performance of the Contract and for the payment to all persons supplying labor and material for the work (see 10.a., below). The Proposal guaranties of all parties except the three highest scoring Proposals will be returned promptly after the opening
of Proposals. After execution of the Contract and issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the remaining two Proposers’ guaranties will be returned. b. Proposer also, if required by the Proposal Documents, will fully complete and submit with the Proposal a Pitkin County Qualification Statement, or an updated Statement if one is already on file. Pitkin County reserves the right to pre-qualify Proposers based on said qualification statements.
c. Proposer also must submit with the Proposal a list of subcontractors, independent contractors and suppliers to be employed under the Contract. If the County has a reasonable objection to any such subcontractor, independent contractor or supplier, it
shall notify the Proposer and the Proposer may then: (a) withdraw the Proposal; or (b) substitute an acceptable contractor or supplier. If required by the Contract Documents, subcontractors, independent contractors and/or suppliers may be required to submit a
Contractor's Qualification Statement. d. Proposals by corporations must be executed in the corporate name by the president or
a vice-president (or other corporate officer accompanied by evidence of authority to sign) and the corporate seal must be affixed and attested by the secretary or an assistant secretary. The corporate address and state of incorporation shall be shown below the
signature. e. Proposals by partnerships or limited liability companies (“LLC”) must be executed in the partnership or LLC name and signed by a partner, authorized LLC officer, whose title must appear under the signature and the official address of the partnership or LLC must be shown below the signature. The state in which the entity was formed and whose law governs the entity shall be shown below the signature.
f. All names must be typed or printed below the signature. 4. a. Proposer acknowledges that this proposal is solicited and submitted subject to the
requirements of the "Pitkin County Procurement Code," (Ordinance #009-2021, as previously amended by Ordinances #026-2005 & #03-2007 (copies available via the PitkinCounty website at https://pitkincounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/27059/title-
03-revenue-and-finance or upon request for a nominal charge). As such, the Proposer agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of said Procurement Code relating to proposing, contract drafting, contract administration, and ethics. The requirements
of the Procurement Code are incorporated herein by this reference. b. The Proposer shall immediately notify the County Manager in writing of any violation of said Code by the County's employees or agents, which violation is known or should have been known by Proposer, and failure to so notify the County of violations within five (5) days of knowledge of such violations shall disqualify the Proposer from award
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
24
of the Contract being proposed and shall be deemed as a waiver of any action or defense that the Proposer may have against the County by reason of such violation of
the Procurement Code. c. The submission of a Proposal shall be conclusive evidence and legal admission that
the Proposer: (1) has no questions, complaints or objections in connection with the Proposal process and/or documents, subject to any requests made by Proposer for amplification, clarification, explanation, interpretation or correction pursuant to
Paragraph 2.a. and 2.c., above; (2) has no questions, complaints or objections as to the completeness, sufficiency, scope or detail of the Proposal Documents; and (3) has full knowledge of the scope, nature, quality and quantity of work to be performed, the detailed requirements of the Proposal Documents including any and all contract documents, the plans and specifications, the site and conditions under which the work is to be performed, the Pitkin County Procurement Code and applicable Colorado law. 5. a. All Proposals will be opened and read in public by name of Proposer only. No
Proposals may be withdrawn after the beginning of the public opening. The County, in its sole discretion, may delay a Proposal opening for no longer than two (2) business days if weather or other circumstances beyond control of Proposers results in delay in
receipt of Proposals. Proposals may be withdrawn at any time prior to the beginning of the public opening or modified by a document executed and delivered in a form substantially similar to the Proposal Form prior to opening.
b. All Proposals submitted must be valid for a minimum period of sixty (60) days after the date of the Proposal opening. During this time, Proposers are investigated, and
Proposals are evaluated. 6. a. Proposals will be awarded to the highest scoring Proposer complying with the terms,
conditions, guidelines, selection criteria, plans and specifications presented in the Request For Proposals. All rights are reserved by the County to determine, in the County's sole reasonable discretion, whether the Proposal meets the needs or a purpose intended and is within the budget. b. Although price may be a major consideration in the selection of a Proposal, the County does not award on price alone. The County may also consider the quality of product as judged by the County; past experience with Proposers, subcontractors, independent
contractors, products or suppliers; qualifications of the Proposers and/or subcontractors, independent contractors or suppliers; services offered; warranties; maintenance considerations; long-range costs; delivery; and similar considerations,
all as specified in detail in the RFP. c. The County reserves the absolute right to conduct such investigations as it deems
necessary to assist in the evaluation of any Proposal and to establish the experience, responsibility, reliability, references, reputation, business ethics, history, qualifications and financial ability of the Proposers and proposed subcontractors,
independent contractors and suppliers. The purpose of such investigation is to satisfy the County that the Proposer has the experience, resources and commercial reputation necessary to perform the work and support any warranties in accordance with the
Contract Documents in the prescribed manner and time.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
25
d. The County, at its sole discretion, may require the apparent successful Proposer to demonstrate, at a place and time designated by the County, that the Proposal meets
the performance criteria specified, or to otherwise provide documented proof from independent reliable sources acceptable to the County that said performance criteria will be met prior to final acceptance of the Proposal. The burden of proof of such a
demonstration is on the Proposer. In the event that the apparent successful Proposer fails to demonstrate or provide acceptable proof of meeting required performance criteria, that proposal will be rejected and the next eligible Proposer in the selection
ranking will be invited to participate in the same process until a proposal meeting performance criteria is found within the ranking of eligible Proposers. The County reserves the rights to reject any or all Proposals or to otherwise accept the Proposal which in the County's sole discretion is in the best interest of the County. e. Pitkin County reserves the right, if it deems such action to be in the best interests of the County, to reject any and all Proposals or to waive any irregularities or informalities therein. Any incomplete, conclusory, false or misleading information
provided by Proposer shall be grounds for rejection of the proposal. If proposals are rejected, the County further reserves the right to investigate and accept the next best proposal in order of ranking or to reject all proposals and re-solicit for additional pro-
posals. f. Any questions or disputes involving the documents or procedures not covered by these
Instructions or other Proposal Documents shall be resolved by the Procurement Officer on the basis of fairness, custom in the industry, maximization of competition and best interests and convenience of the County.
7. Issuance of Notice of Award, execution of Contract Documents and issuance of a Notice to Proceed shall be as specified in the Contract Documents and in accordance with the Pitkin
County Procurement Code. County standard practice is to first notice the top-ranked proposer and enter into a final contract agreement prior to notifying unsuccessful bidders. Non-awarded bidders will be notified of the County’s decision and shall be offered an optional debrief conversation of the bidding and evaluation process; debrief conversations may be offered prior to contract signing but, in most cases, will not be scheduled until a contract has been finalized. 8. Contracts will be executed on standard Pitkin County Contract documents and/or by separate
agreement with the Proposer. Copies of any applicable standard forms are included with the Proposal Documents. The County reserves the right to negotiate with the Proposer for contract terms not specified in the Proposing Documents. Any changes from the Pitkin
County standard form contract may result in a delay in the issuance of a Notice to Proceed in order to obtain any necessary County Attorney review of changes from the standard form. Proposer agrees that any such delays shall not be grounds for either additional compensation
or an extension of time to complete the work that is the subject of the Proposal. 9. If any contract awarded as a result of a Proposal extends beyond the calendar year, nothing
herein shall be construed as an obligation by the County beyond any amounts that may be, from time to time, appropriated by the County on an annual basis. It is understood that payment under any Contract is conditional upon annual or supplemental statutory
appropriation of funds by said governing body and that before providing services, the Proposer, if he/she so requests, will be advised as to the status of funds appropriated for
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
26
services or materials and shall not be obligated to provide services or materials for which funds have not been appropriated.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
Rev. 2022.6.21 CDD
RFP # 020.25
ADDENDUM # 1
Date: January 17, 2025
TO: All Parties of Interest for the REGIONAL SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL
FEASIBILITY PROJECT.
This addendum is issued in response to inquiries received and/or to clarify details regarding
the Regional Sustainable Aviation Fuel Feasibility Project Request for Proposals.
The following responses and/or clarifications are hereby adopted as Project Documents and,
where applicable, supersede or are in addition to any previously issued documentation or
communication.
1. Question: The RFP states that Task 1 will quantify the existing feedstocks available
on the Western Slope. Is the feedstock assessment limited to the region? Fats, Oils
and Greases can be transported relatively economically over rail, with limited overall
impact on carbon intensity, so do you also want an assessment of whether shipping
in FOG is reasonable, or are you strictly committed to local sources?
● Response: It is our intent to first look to assess feedstocks within close
proximity of a refinery on the Western Slope. We will look to the feasibility
study to inform us if other means would be needed to supply the demand.
2. Question: How do you define "local"? For example, the largest source of used
cooking oil is going to be in Denver, but that is approximately 200 miles away.
● Response: Please refer to the response in Question 1.
3. Question: The RFP asks for an assessment of the potential of water for electrolysis
and renewable energy. Those are the requirements for hydrogen production, but they
do not state that directly, so are you seeking an assessment of the potential for
hydrogen/e-fuels as an aviation fuel, or just for the replacement of fossil hydrogen in
HEFA refining?
● Response: At this point we are looking for drop-in fuel. Hydrogen/e-fuels
are just not in our short-term plan to assess SAF as an immediate proven
source of drop-in fuel.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
Rev. 2022.6.21 CDD
4. Question: In response to this statement in the FOA: "The study should evaluate both
blended drop-in SAF delivery to regional airports within the area as well as shipment
of blended drop-in SAF or SAF blend stocks to other regions", a couple of questions:
o The FOA provides descriptions of the regional airports, but is there
specific guidance on which regions should be included in the feasibility
study (other than the major hub in nearby Salt Lake Utah)?
o Should we consider the adjoining regions to the Western Slope?
● Response: At this point the focus is on Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, Rifle
Airport, Eagle County Regional Airport and Grand Junction Regional
Airport. It seems that the feasibility assessment will inform us if we need to
look at expanding to other locations. Seems working inside out would help
to define other locations, starting with other Western Slope possibilities, and
if determined, going so far as Salt Lake if warranted. Pitkin County is not
looking to be prescriptive in the overall evaluation. Our intent is to work
with the successful bidder on refining the scope as needed.
5. Question: According to the FOA (page 10), the first deliverable under Task 1
(Feedstock Availability Analysis):
o specified the inclusion of "graphical summaries." Should this be
interpreted as requiring one graph per feedstock, or is it acceptable to
include multiple graphs for each feedstock?
o Should we stay within the Western Slope or consider the adjoining regions
too depending on feedstock availability?
● Response: The format in reporting the graphical summaries of each
feedstock is up to each proposer to submit what they feel would be the best
way to report the findings. As for part two of the question, please refer to the
response contained in Question #1.
6. Question: For Task 3, what is the expected timeframe for fuel demand projections?
Is there a specified range of years, such as 5, 10, 50, or another range?
● Response: Airports generally use 20 year outlooks, so at a minimum 20
years would be expected.
7. Question: Are any federal dollars being used to fund this study?
● Response: No
8. Question: Does the County have a designated volume for how much jet fuel you
would like to replace?
● Response: Eventual target is to replace 100% of the jet fuel, but currently the
FAA regulations only allow a 50/50 blend.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
Rev. 2022.6.21 CDD
9. Question: The RFP states that we want to build one facility in Mesa County, can
you describe the current infrastructure for SAF?
● Response: That is what needs to be assessed as part of Task 5. Delta County
has submitted a request for consideration for both feedstock and site
evaluation. We have indicated that other locations may be more appropriate
and that multiple landfill locations may be an option. We have listed Mesa
County as the focus site given the potential for land, infrastructure, and
workforce, however others sites may be more applicable based on data.
10. Question: Is there the potential for multiple sources for feed stock?
● Response: Yes, the proposal lists multiple sources and is not all inclusive.
Delta County has asked to be included as part of feedstock Task 1.
11. Question: Are you looking for 1 SAF plant at a single facility?
● Response: The County is open to multiple facilities.
12. Question: Do you foresee any Colorado regulations that might be an obstacle for the
use of SAF at ASE?
● Response: Not aware of or anticipating any Colorado regulations. This study
13. Question: Does the County want an economic comparison of the new SAF
production to the existing SAF that’s being purchased/used or a comparison to the
existing Jet A today that’s being purchased today?
● Response: Yes, the County would like to have an economic comparison of
existing SAF procured versus SAF procured at the proposed new SAF
facility. An economic comparison of SAF versus existing fossil based JetA is
not necessary as a part of this project.
14. Question: Will the current/upcoming MSW study be included in the SAF study?
● Response: No this RFP does not include the study that is being performed as
part of Eagle County’s MSW project, however the company working with
Eagle County is called out as a one of the companies to be evaluated for that
particular process and if that has potential for use at other landfills.
15. Question: Is there a funding cap for this study?
● Response: Yes, the County has a budget of $450,000 that’s a combination of
grants and partnerships.
16. Question: Is Pitkin County the entity that will be paying the chosen contractor?
● Response: Yes.
17. Question: There was mention of a sample contract/terms and conditions. Is it on
BidNet?
● Response: Yes.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
Rev. 2022.6.21 CDD
EMail Received from Delta County:
Rich,
I am the Director of One Delta County: An Economic Alliance, which is the economic
development entity within Delta County.
If possible, Delta County would like to be included in the Pitkin County Regional
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) Feasibility Project. In addition to being a large
agriculture producing area, we have a parcel of land up to 169 acres adjacent to
Highway 50 and centrally located north of the city of Delta which is surrounded by
BLM property. We have significant feedstock and agriculture waste in the area as a
result of our agriculture production, other potential agriculture by-product sources
that can be explored, forestry residue and wood processing waste, abundant crop
land for growing cover crops and an abundant water supply.
In addition, under certain circumstances, Delta County may be able to offer an
attractive incentive package.
Please consider including Delta County in the feasibility project.
Greg K. Pope
Director
One Delta County: An Economic Alliance
O: 970-874-2188 | M: 970-275-0717
560 Dodge Street | Delta, CO 81416
Thank you for reviewing this Request for Proposals and for your willingness to pursue
business opportunities with Pitkin County. Should you require any additional clarification
regarding the Project or this Addendum, please contact Procurement@PitkinCounty.com .
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment A - RFP Documents
PROPOSAL FORM
Proposal Time: 2:00 PM MT
Proposal Date: January 27th, 2025
From: Savia Consulting
Phone: +1 514 758 6693/ +34 603 844 867
E-mail Address:keithlawless2295@gmail.com / damiana.serafini@gmail.com
To: THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
c/o Procurement
530 E Main Street, Suite #304
Aspen, CO 81611
For: RFP 020.25: Regional Sustainable Aviation Fuel Feasibility Project
Pursuant to a request by the Pitkin County Commissioners, the undersigned Proposer having examined
this Request for Proposals (RFP), including familiarization of the site and/or the conditions of the
proposed Service environment, including the availability of materials and labor hereby proposes to
furnish all labor, materials, supplies, applicable permits, services, and supervision required to provide a
completed product as detailed in this RFP and adjoining documentation for the sum of:
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
2
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4
The team ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Statement of Intention to Address the Project Scope of Work and Schedule ...................................... 6
A. Project Scope of Work ....................................................................................................................... 6
B. Project Schedule ................................................................................................................................. 6
Section I – Description of work ................................................................................................................ 7
Task 1 - Feedstock Availability Analysis ............................................................................................... 7
1.2 Statement and Detailed Approach to Service: ............................................................................. 7
1.3 Feedstock-related Information ..................................................................................................... 8
1.4 Sustainability-related issues, including greenhouse gas emissions ............................................. 8
1.5 Deliverable ................................................................................................................................... 9
Task 2 – Viable SAF Conversion Pathways for Available Feedstock .................................................. 10
2.1 Statement and Detailed Approach to Service: ........................................................................... 10
Task 3 - Fuel Usage Projections ........................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Statement and Detailed Approach to Service: ........................................................................... 12
Task 4 – Existing Jet Fuel Supply Chain and SAF Transportation Needs ........................................... 13
4.1 Statement and Detailed Approach to Service: ........................................................................... 13
Task 5 – Site Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 15
5.1 Statement and Detailed Approach to Service: ........................................................................... 15
Task 6 – Economic Viability Analysis ................................................................................................. 17
6.1 Statement and Detailed Approach to Service: ........................................................................... 17
Task 7 - Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 22
Section II – Deliverables .......................................................................................................................... 23
Section III – Timeline .............................................................................................................................. 25
Section IV – Financial offer .................................................................................................................... 27
Payment schedule ............................................................................................................................. 27
Costs break-down: ........................................................................................................................... 27
Annex I - Qualifications of Proposer: .................................................................................................... 28
CV of Proposers .................................................................................................................................... 29
Keith Lawless ................................................................................................................................... 29
Damiana Serafini .............................................................................................................................. 31
References ............................................................................................................................................. 33
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
3
List of Tables
Table 1 - Existing and potential SAF feedstocks ......................................................................................... 7
Table 2 - Sample Comparison Matrix - SAF Conversion Pathways for Selected Feedstocks .................. 11
Table 3 - ICAO SAF Policy Framework ................................................................................................... 16
Table 4 – ICAO ‘rules of thumb’ SAF facilities ....................................................................................... 18
Table 5 - Project SkyPower Power-to-Liquid SAF Cash-Flow Model ..................................................... 19
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Simulation of SAF’s sustainability certification pathway .......................................................... 9
Figure 2 - Feedstock Feasibility Matrix ....................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3 - SAF production pathways and associated feedstocks ............................................................... 10
Figure 5 - D7566 SATF Production Concept ............................................................................................ 13
Figure 6 - Co-Processing SAF Processing Logistics ................................................................................. 14
Figure 8 - Project SkyPower Power-to-Liquid SAF Cash-Flow Model (cont’) ........................................ 20
Figure 9 - Cost + Model example for a HEFA-based SAF, including US incentives ............................... 21
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
4
Introduction
Savia Consulting is proud to present this proposal in response to Pitkin County's RFP 020.25 for the
Regional Sustainable Aviation Fuel Feasibility Project. We share Pitkin County's vision of advancing
sustainable aviation practices, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and fostering economic and social
development in the region. Our approach is thoughtfully crafted to align with these objectives, delivering
a detailed feasibility study to explore the establishment of an SAF production facility within Mesa
County in Western Colorado.
As the aviation industry moves toward a low-carbon future, SAF emerges as the crucial solution. This
initiative examines regional feedstock availability, transportation systems, production technologies, and
economic viability, positioning the Western Slope as a leader in sustainable aviation. The proposal
addresses seven key tasks, including feedstock assessment, site evaluation, and economic viability
analysis, to support Pitkin County's goals of reducing environmental impacts, creating jobs, and
establishing a cost-effective SAF supply chain.
Savia Consulting, led by Keith Lawless and Damiana Serafini, brings decades of leadership in
sustainable aviation, renewable energy, and economic analysis. What sets Savia Consulting apart from
all other applicants is our unbiased dedication to a common vision: the best future for the aviation
industry is dictated by sustainable growth. We remain impartial to any feedstock or technology and do
not align with ideological groups that oppose sustainability principles focused on people and nature. Our
genuine commitment to the sustainable growth of aviation ensures that, throughout the development of
this consultancy, we will engage stakeholders with sincere interest and strive to build social trust within
the community, ensuring Pitkin County is well represented to implement action
Mr. Lawless is an aviation industry veteran and has a proven history of leading SAF feasibility studies
under ICAO. Keith has secured multimillion-dollar funding for sustainable aviation fuel projects and has
conducted engineering studies (FEL-1 and FEL-2) and site selection for commercial eSAF plants,
including for the first eSAF pilot plant in Canada. He is an active participant in SAF policy and techno-
economic workgroups such as C-SAF (Canada), Project SkyPower (EU), CAAFI (USA), and the
SASHA Coalition (UK). He also contributes articles and opinions to industry publications such as SAF
Investor and is a sought-after presenter and panelist at aviation decarbonization conferences and events.
Ms. Serafini, a renowned aviation sustainability expert, has spearheaded global initiatives for IATA and
ICAO, focusing on SAF deployment and ESG frameworks. Their combined expertise encompasses
technical innovation, regulatory compliance, and stakeholder collaboration across diverse regions,
delivering a uniquely qualified and globally informed perspective. While Damiana and Keith will be
responsible for delivering this project, Savia Consulting will be able to draw on the experience and
knowledge from a vast network of resources such as SAF producers and developers, industry
associations, and stakeholders in the aviation industry and fuel supply chain.
We are excited about the prospect of collaborating with Pitkin County and its regional partners to bring
this innovative vision to life. We are confident that our efforts will help pave the way for a more
sustainable future in aviation.
Sincerely yours,
Keith Lawless Damiana Serafini
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
5
The team
Brief biographies for Mr. Keith Lawless and Ms. Damiana Serafini:
Name and Function
Keith Lawless: Engineer - Senior Renewable Aviation Consultant
Keith Lawless is an experienced executive with a strong background in aviation and environmental
management. He currently serves as Chief Commercial Officer at SAF+ International Group and the
Managing Director of Savia Consulting. Since 2022, Keith has been instrumental in preparing a SAF
feasibility study for a major West African country under ICAO's auspices and consulting with airlines
and airports on optimizing GHG reporting and regulatory compliance. He has also secured millions of
dollars in project financing for sustainable aviation development projects and is responsible for an eSAF
pilot plant in East Montreal. Previously, Keith worked as the Senior Director of Environment, ETS &
Strategic Projects at Air Transat from 2001 to 2022. In this role, he developed Air Transat’s first
Strategic Planning process and climate-related disclosure report, implemented a cost reduction program
saving millions annually, and led fleet studies and the retirement of the A310 fleet, pioneering aircraft
recycling in Quebec. Keith was a founding member of the Air Transat fuel efficiency team, contributing
to the airline's recognition as one of the most fuel-efficient airlines globally. He also established an
award-winning environment department and achieved the first Canadian LEED EB Platinum
certification for Air Transat’s head office. Prior to working in the aviation industry, Keith worked as a
plant manager for an automobile parts manufacturing plant, as an operations management consultant,
and as a process and research engineer. He has worked in Quebec, BC, Ontario, the United States,
Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Australia. Keith has a bachelor’s degree in engineering
(Metallurgy) from McGill University, an MBA from McGill/Université Catholique de Louvain
(Belgium), and a certificate in Business Leadership Development from Christ Church University of
Oxford (UK). Keith received a Clean50 award in 2021 given to the top fifty sustainability leaders in
Canada.
Damiana Serafini: Agriculture and Resources Economist - SAF Senior Technical Consultant
Damiana brings 20 years of experience on a broad range of aviation environmental and economics
topics such as CO2 emissions accounting, reporting, and disclosure, development and deployment of
sustainable aviation fuels, market-based mechanisms and chain of custody models, and various
environmental regulation topics across the aviation value chain. As IATA’s senior consultant, Damiana
is leading Project ALIGHT. This is a research and innovation programme funded by the European
Union's Horizon 2020, aimed at bringing forward the necessary solutions, knowledge, guidelines, and
best practice handbooks supporting an efficient airport paradigm shift towards zero emission aviation
and airport operation, with a strong focus on SAF supply and usage in preparation for ReFuelEU
compliance. Damiana also acts as IATA’s focal point for the development of ESG sections within an
airport’s master plan.
Before joining IATA, Damiana conducted feasibility studies on the development and deployment of
SAF for Trinidad and Tobago and Zimbabwe under ICAO’s Act-SAF programme. Similarly, she
worked for the USA EPA Smartway programme as technical consultant in the development and launch
of Chile’s of green freight program ‘Giro Limpio,’ the only and first such programme to include the
aviation industry.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
6
Statement of Intention to Address the Project Scope of Work and Schedule
A. Project Scope of Work
Our approach to addressing the scope of work outlined in RFP 020.25 focuses on delivering a
comprehensive and data-driven feasibility study to assess the potential for a SAF production facility on
the Western Slope of Colorado. We intend to fulfill all required tasks, including:
1. Feedstock Availability Analysis: Quantifying and mapping regional feedstocks for SAF
production, ensuring alignment with sustainability criteria from CORSIA and other recognized
systems.
2. Viable SAF Conversion Pathways: Evaluating advanced production technologies to determine
the most effective methods for utilizing identified feedstocks.
3. Fuel Usage Projections: Analyzing current and future fuel demands for regional airports to
ensure alignment with SAF production capacity.
4. Jet Fuel Supply Chain Assessment: Reviewing existing logistics and infrastructure to identify
opportunities and gaps in SAF transportation and storage.
5. Site Evaluation: Collaborating with local stakeholders to identify optimal locations for a
production facility, considering proximity to feedstocks and community impact.
6. Economic Viability Analysis: Conducting detailed financial modeling to evaluate cost-
effectiveness and investment potential of the proposed facility.
7. Executive Summary Preparation: Delivering a clear and actionable final report summarizing
findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Our team will ensure all deliverables are completed with a focus on accuracy, evidence, and actionable
outcomes, aligning with Pitkin County’s climate action and economic goals.
B. Project Schedule
We propose a structured timeline that adheres to the milestones outlined in the RFP. The schedule will
include detailed timelines for each task, regular progress reviews, and a milestone decision point after
Task 1 to ensure project feasibility before continuing. Key elements of the schedule include:
• Kick-off Meeting (KoM): Foster collaboration by bringing together stakeholders to align on
objectives, scope, roles, and timelines. Promote a shared vision, define responsibilities, set
communication protocols, and address potential risks or challenges.
• Task 1 Completion: Analysis and preliminary findings within 5 weeks of project initiation.
• Interim Reviews: Scheduled checkpoints with stakeholders to ensure alignment and incorporate
feedback.
• Final Deliverables: Submission of the comprehensive report and standalone executive summary
by the agreed project end date, ensuring readiness for public dissemination and decision-making.
This structured, transparent, and collaborative approach guarantees timely and high-quality outcomes for
Pitkin County and its stakeholders.
The following section includes a detailed description of the scope of work, approach, activities, and
deliverables for each task aligned with requisites described in the RFP.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
7
Section I – Description of work
Task 1 - Feedstock Availability Analysis
SAF is defined as an aviation fuel derived from renewable sources or waste materials that meet
sustainability criteria. A SAF pathway is defined as the specific combination of feedstock and
conversion process employed in SAF production.
1.2 Statement and Detailed Approach to Service:
For task 1, assessment begins with the quantification of available feedstocks for SAF processing as well
as those that could potentially be produced on the Western Slope, which will then define the potential
conversion processes suitable for SAF production. Feedstocks that fail to meet ICAO sustainability criteria
or lack a pathway to achieve at least a 50% reduction in lifecycle carbon shall be excluded from the
analysis.
Task 1 shall encompass three main categories (for more details on what is included under each category,
refer to section 1.1 onward):
1. Detailed information on each existing and potential feedstock for SAF processing
2. Sustainability-related issues, including greenhouse gas emissions
3. Deliverable
The evaluation shall consider, but not be limited to, the following list of feedstocks:
Classification Feedstock examples
Waste and Residue Lipids - Used cooking oil (UCO)
- Animal fats (tallow)
Forestry Residues
- Logging residues (e.g., treetops, branches)
- Sawdust and wood shavings
- Wood-processing waste
Agricultural Residues - Corn stover
- Wheat straw
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) - Organic fraction of municipal waste
- Landfill gas
Sustainably Certified Energy Crops
- Camelina
- Carinata
- Switchgrass
- Miscanthus
Industrial Gases - Point source and waste carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon
dioxide (CO₂) from industrial processes
Other - Existing ethanol production or supply chains for ethanol
Table 1 - Existing and potential SAF feedstocks
Engaging with the State and local stakeholders (such as agricultural producers and cooperatives,
energy/agricultural authorities, etc.) across each category will enhance understanding of the Western
Slope’s unique circumstances and priorities, streamlining the evaluation process. Depending on the
complexity, the study may encompass both qualitative and quantitative aspects (e.g., yields of specific
feedstocks, land use, existing agricultural practices, etc.). A comprehensive assessment (refer to section
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
8
'Summary of evaluated feedstock') will present an overarching view of the most viable feedstocks,
enabling Pitkin County to direct its implementation support accordingly.
1.3 Feedstock-related Information
This section will provide information for each feedstock evaluated, including the following parameters:
1. Availability assessment
2. Main production areas
3. Historical production
4. Suitable conversion processes for SAF production
5. Possibility for production expansion and projections
a. Potential for expansion of production on unused lands
b. Potential of yield increase in existing production areas
6. Key stakeholders
7. Use in other modes of transport, if applicable
1.4 Sustainability-related issues, including greenhouse gas emissions
Information on sustainability aspects associated with each feedstock will be assessed, using as a basis
the sustainability themes and related principles and criteria compliant with ICAO’s Carbon Offsetting
and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) Sustainable Aviation Fuels requirements,
as follows:
1. Greenhouse Gases (GHG)
2. Carbon stock
3. Greenhouse gas Emissions Reduction Permanence
4. Water
5. Soil
6. Air
7. Conservation
8. Waste and Chemicals
9. Seismic and Vibrational Impacts
10. Human and labor rights
11. Land use rights and land use
12. Water use rights
13. Local and social development
14. Food security
The above evaluation shall provide a readiness analysis of pathways for sustainability certification,
including eligibility under CORSIA (e.g. RSB CORSIA, ISCC CORSIA) and other schemes. Similarly,
it shall map sustainability certification steps along the production and supply chain and explain how the
priority pathways can be used to streamline the sustainability certification process to further promote the
use of SAF (figure 1). A discussion is included on the potential benefits and challenges of using the
defined priority pathways for the sustainability certification and the implications for the development
and implementation of SAF in the County’s aviation industry.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
9
Figure 1 - Simulation of SAF’s sustainability certification pathway
1.5 Deliverable
Accompanied by a timeline and total cost for successful completion, the deliverable for Task 1 will
include a narrative of types of available and potential feedstock for SAF production in the Western
Slope. Volumes of existing feedstock identified will be quantified and assumptions and uncertainties
clarified. A graphical summary will be provided in the form of a ‘Feasibility Matrix’ which shall
summarize the information obtained in the previous sections. The matrix will illustrate opportunities and
major constraints with regard to the maturity of each feedstock’s supply chain, as well as the feasibility
of the entire supply chain (e.g. spatial quantification of feedstock densities for qualifying feedstock like
forest residues), including available technology options, exemplified in the following picture:
Figure 2 - Feedstock Feasibility Matrix
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
10
Task 2 – Viable SAF Conversion Pathways for Available Feedstock
A production pathway is defined as "a type of technology used to convert a feedstock into aviation fuel."
Like conventional aviation fuel, SAF technical pathways are evaluated and approved by organizations
such as ASTM and Def Stan 91-091. The following figures provides an example of SAF pathways and
associated feedstocks:
Figure 3 - SAF production pathways and associated feedstocks
2.1 Statement and Detailed Approach to Service:
Taking into account results from the feedstock availability evaluation, Task 2 shall provide information
supporting the evaluation of each feedstock-conversion pathway identified for SAF production in the
Western Slope (existing and potential) and for the technology expected in the near term (2-3 years out)
and near future (3-5 years out).
This includes an estimate of optimum volume of SAF production and volumes of coproducts per selected
conversion pathway. Contingent to findings on Task 1, emerging lab-scale and pilot-scale technologies
that could potentially consolidate various feedstocks into a single production facility may be considered.
This includes LanzaTech's gas fermentation process for converting alcohol to jet fuel and SynTech
BioEnergy's gasification technology for Fisher-Tropsch production, DG Fuels biomass to fuel and Gevo’s
isobutanol to fuel processes, Infinium’s power-to-liquid technology, amongst others.
Outputs for Task 2 will be delivered in the form of a comparison matrix that enumerates each feasible
technology, along with verified providers for each. The matrix will present comparisons that highlight the
feedstocks utilized, total SAF production and coproducts according to feedstock availability from Task 1,
estimated carbon reduction potential based on LCA values, coproducts, and other pertinent differentiators
between the pathways. Following is a sample of the comparison matrix:
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
11
Feedstock Category –
Carbon Source
Production/Tech
Pathway
Technology
providers
Production
Volumes
Emission
Reduction
Potential %
Waste & residue lipids
HEFA
SAF - % / kt
Naphtha - % / kt
RD - % / kt
Oily cover crops
Used cooking oil,
animal fats
Oilseed bearing herbs
Oil trees/shrubs
Cellulosic biomass
Gas/FT
ATJ
SAF - % / kt
Naphtha - % / kt
RD - % / kt
Cellulosic cover crops
Agricultural residues
Forest residues
Wood processing waste
Municipal Solid Waste Gas/FT
SAF - % / kt
Naphtha - % / kt
RD - % / kt
Direct CO2 capture
from air / Industrial
waste gas from burning
fossil fuels/ Point
source carbon
Power to Liquid
(FT or Methane)
SAF - % / kt
Naphtha - % / kt
RD - % / kt
Table 2 - Sample Comparison Matrix - SAF Conversion Pathways for Selected Feedstocks
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
12
Task 3 - Fuel Usage Projections
To understand the demand for SAF within Pitkin County, and consequently determine production needs,
it is important to estimate current and future jet fuel demand as well as the emission reduction goals for
each airport. This entails a systematic process that includes data collection, analysis, forecasting, and
stakeholder consultation.
3.1 Statement and Detailed Approach to Service:
Calculating the actual and foreseen fuel demand is a complex task due to the various parameters. Our
approach to task 3 is to implement recognized forecasting methods that range from applying simple
growth rates to market-specific detailed modelling.
Before any detailed estimates or forecast can be made of the fuel demand it is necessary to obtain as
reliable an indication as is possible of the future level of aircraft activity at each of the four selected
airports. Working closely with Airport Directors, information regarding the anticipated airport growth
levels—including aircraft movements and passenger numbers—will be requested. This will encompass
the expected mix of aircraft (such as narrow-bodied and wide-bodied planes), as well as details on
destinations, schedules, and typical fuel uplifts.
In the case that little or no information is available, initial estimates will be made using publicly
available date by comparing the proposed size of the airport facilities—particularly the number of
runways and terminals—with existing airports of similar size and utilization. The possibility of airlines
‘tankering’ and the likely effects this would have on fuel volumes will also be part of the assessment.
The following activities will be undertaken to estimate fuel usage projections for the four selected
airports and predict future demand:
1. Data Collection:
o Gather current jet fuel demand values provided in the introduction.
o Collect additional data on current fuel usage from the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport,
Rifle/Garfield Regional Airport, Grand Junction Regional Airport, and Eagle Regional
Airport.
2. Fuel Usage Analysis:
o Analyze the collected data to quantify the current jet fuel usage for each airport.
o Evaluate the overall fuel usage for the Western Slope region based on the individual
airport data.
3. Projections for Future Growth:
o Develop projections for the future growth of aviation fuel demand in the Western Slope
region for the next 20 years.
o Consider factors such as anticipated airport expansions, potential increases in air traffic,
changes in aircraft fleets, and regional economic growth.
4. Assumptions and Uncertainties:
o Identify and document the key assumptions used in the fuel usage analysis and
projections.
o Assess uncertainties and potential variables that could impact the future fuel demand
forecasts.
The deliverable for task 3 will be a comprehensive Fuel Usage Report. This report will include tabulated
current fuel usage and demand forecasts for each airport, a detailed analysis of overall fuel usage for the
Western Slope region, projections for future growth of aviation fuel demand, and documentation of
assumptions and uncertainties influencing the fuel demand and capacity assessments.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
13
Task 4 – Existing Jet Fuel Supply Chain and SAF Transportation Needs
The objective of task 4 is to determine how existing supply chains can deliver SAF to Western Slope
airports.
4.1 Statement and Detailed Approach to Service:
Although feedstock and technology selection are key components in developing a SAF project, blending,
distribution, and storage infrastructure are equally important. Current regulations require SAF to be
blended with kerosene up to 50% before it can be uploaded into an aircraft. Once blended the resulting
product is fungible with regular jet fuel and can be safely stored and distributed. This adds logistical
complexity and cost and may require additional fuel handling infrastructure. For example, most airports
have severe space constraints and do not have room for additional storage facilities, requiring the SAF to
be blended offsite and delivered through existing infrastructure at the airport. In addition, current jet fuel
storage and distribution is controlled by intermediaries such as legacy petroleum companies, jet fuel
distributors (truck, rail, and pipeline), and airports. Our experience has shown that it is critical to involve
these stakeholders as soon as possible when developing a SAF project. If not, a SAF producer might have
their access to the jet fuel distribution system limited or blocked. In addition, collaboration will help
resolve logistical issues and reduce capital costs.
Figure 4 - D7566 SATF Production Concept
Our approach to completing task 4 will consist of the following phases:
First phase:
1. We will meet with the key jet fuel producers and distributors in the Western Slope and Colorado
state to get their input to discuss a SAF project. Having completed three ICAO’s ACT-SAF
feasibility study in Zimbabwe, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ivory Coast, experience evidences that
meeting with upper management from local jet fuel providers and suppliers is critical for
establishing a functional SAF industry. These meetings could be arranged during the initial site
visits and kick-off meetings. We will focus on the three major players:
a. SUNCOR (U.S.A) Commerce City. As the major jet fuel and petroleum products for
Colorado and the Western Slope, SUNCOR has a well-developed truck and rail network
that could be used for SAF distribution. We would also like to discuss their interest in co-
processing renewable fuel feedstocks, which would significantly reduce project capital
costs and leverage existing technical knowledge. Another topic of discussion, if co-
processing is not an option would be to gauge their interest in setting up blending
infrastructure in their refinery facilities.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
14
Figure 5 - Co-Processing SAF Processing Logistics
b. Atlantic Aviation and Avfuel. Atlantic Aviation, in partnership with Avfuel Corporation
and Neste, already supply SAF to Atlantic’s for FBO locations in We would like to talk to
them about their experience and discuss how they could become part of a future SAF
project.
c. North Slope & Pitkin County Airports (ex. ASE, EGE, GJT). We would get the input
of these airports on their thoughts regarding how they would like to receive the blended
SAF and what are their main challenges.
2. Second phase:
The second part of completing task 4 will be to perform a gap analysis of what is required for
SAF distribution and identify upgrade requirements. We will do this by using feedback from the
stakeholders in part 1, along with engineering and logistics studies and reports from similar SAF
projects to identify upgrades and changes to the current fuel distribution systems.
Third phase:
3. Final report comparing the current fuel distribution systems at Western Slope airports with the
requirements for distributing SAF, including necessary logistics and infrastructure upgrade
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
15
Task 5 – Site Evaluation
The objective of task 5 is to identify high potential SAF project sites in Mesa County that can serve
Western Slope airports. We will work closely with the Grand Junction Economic Partnership (GJEP),
MESA county official, and local community groups to identify opportunities and challenges.
5.1 Statement and Detailed Approach to Service:
Choosing the best possible site is critical for the success of any large industrial project, such as a SAF
refinery. Its location will have a major impact on cost, reliability, the environment, and social
acceptance. Many factors come into play when deciding on an optimal site:
• Transportation and logistical requirements for moving feedstock from their place of origin to the
processing plant. In the case of bio-based feedstocks this often involves the need to develop new
collection methods and build storage facilities. For example, forestry residues may be abundant
but difficult to access and require special storage facilities to optimize moisture levels and
prevent rot.
• Available industrial SAF and petrochemical refining infrastructure and required site utilities such
as water, power, and waste treatment. These are highly dependent on the chosen feedstock and
technology. For example, PtL (power to liquid) processing plants require large amounts of
carbon dioxide, water, and inexpensive electrical power to produce hydrogen as feedstock for
processing.
• Availability of skilled labor. This will include an evaluation of the current workforce and its
ability to attract the required personnel. Factors such as housing affordability, municipal and
state services, the school system, and quality of life need to be considered. It is not uncommon to
see a SAF project delayed due to difficulty in attracting skilled tradesmen during the construction
phase.
• A review of the regulatory framework for SAF, domestically and internationally, that will drive
SAF usage in Western Slope partner airports and other regions, including financial incentives
that will reduce production costs. It is well known that policy is one of the main factors that
influence the location of SAF projects. For example, mandates that require usage of eSAF in
Europe have led to the development of many new projects. In the USA, federal and state
incentives, such as the IRA, favor the development of certain types of SAF in specific regions.
• Community acceptance and buy-in, as well as environmental and social impacts. Large industrial
projects often meet with resistance from local communities despite large economic and
environmental benefits. This nimbyism can stall or block high potential projects. Locating SAF
refineries in areas that already have the required permitting and environmental assessments can
save time and money.
Our methodology to complete task 5 is to leverage our experience on previous projects and studies
busing evaluation grids and checklists and engineering studies such as BOP (Balance of Plant), Front
End Loading (FEL), and techno-economic studies. To assist us in identifying the right locations where to
set-up a SAF refinery, will use tools such as the ICAO SAF Policy Framework which provides a well-
recognized set of principles and criteria for an exhaustive evaluation.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
16
Table 3 - ICAO SAF Policy Framework
The deliverable for task 5 will be a summary report of potential SAF production sites in Mesa County
with a list of development needs and the benefits and challenges associated with each site.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
17
Task 6 – Economic Viability Analysis
The objective of task 6 will be to determine whether there is an economic business case to provide SAF
from a production facility in Mesa County to Western Slope partner airports and other regions.
6.1 Statement and Detailed Approach to Service:
Building a SAF facility requires a large capital investment. To attract private investors, it is necessary to
provide a positive ROI that is competitive with other investment options. This requires a detailed techno-
economic analysis that incorporates the following parameters:
• Capital costs required to build a new SAF plant or retrofit an existing facility.
• Financing and funding requirements and methods, including offtake agreements and private and
public investment.
• Feedstock costs.
• Raw material costs including power, water and utilities.
• Existing incentives and mandates on SAF production/usage
• Plan operating costs.
• Production volumes and market demand of SAF and associated co-products such as renewable
diesel and naptha.
In addition, constructing a SAF facility will provide and benefit the local community by creating
temporary jobs that will be created during plant construction and permanent jobs required to run the
plant. An estimation of the number of jobs created, as well as other economic benefits will help establish
the viability of a project.
Creating a detailed techno-economic study is a very time intensive because investors require a
tremendous amount of detailed information to make an investment decision. However, we propose to
complete task 6 by making a high-level evaluation of costs and payback. To do so we will leverage our
experience working on SAF techno-economic working groups such as
• Project SkyPower (EU)
• C-SAF (Canada
• SAF+ International Group projects in Canada and France
• C-SAF (Canada)
• ICAO SAF feasibility studies
We will use publicly available tools to run cash-flow simulations such as those from ICAO rules of
thumb and Project SkyPower, which will provide order of magnitude estimations and trends for costs
and cash-flow simulations, as follows:
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
18
Table 4 – ICAO ‘rules of thumb’ SAF facilities
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
19
Table 5 - Project SkyPower Power-to-Liquid SAF Cash-Flow Model
Power-toLiquid Cashflow model
Dashboard
Project simulation assumptions - User inputs
Configurations
Technology RWGS-FT
Timing
Final Investment Decision (Year)2025Construction period 4
Plant set-up
Country United Kingdom
Capacity of plant (kt)50
Renewables source Grid-connected
H2 storage Line packing
Type of CO2 capture Biogenic point source
Financial set-up
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (% of debt)70%
Interest Rate (%)9%
Cost of equity (%)15%
Debt repayment (Years)15
Grace period (Years)2
Target IRR for bankability 15%
Sensitivity
CAPEX buffer (%)0%
Value chain
Proportion of e-SAF in fuel mix used by airline 1.2%
Levers selection to improve financial attractiveness - user inputs required
Policy support Unit Value Duration (years)ON/OFF
Subsidised power pricing €/MWh discount ON
Subsidised hydrogen pricing €/kg H2 discount ON
Grant funding mn €ON
Offtaker subsidy €/t e-SAF ON
Subsidised CO2 price €/t CO2 ON
Responible finance Variables (to be removed before publishing)Value ON/OFF
Concessional loans bps reduction of interest rate ON
De-risking measures bps reduction on WACC ON
Market Variable Value Duration (years) ON/OFF
Green premium % on top of HEFA price ON
WW
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
Figure 6 - Project SkyPower Power-to-Liquid SAF Cash-Flow Model (cont’)
Power-toLiquid Cashflow model
Dashboard
Project simulation assumptions - User inputs
Configurations
Technology RWGS-FT
Timing
Final Investment Decision (Year)2025
Construction period 4
Plant set-up
Country United Kingdom
Capacity of plant (kt)50
Renewables source Grid-connected
H2 storage Line packing
Type of CO2 capture Biogenic point source
Financial set-up
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (% of debt)70%
Interest Rate (%)9%
Cost of equity (%)15%
Debt repayment (Years)15
Grace period (Years)2
Target IRR for bankability 15%
Sensitivity
CAPEX buffer (%)0%
Value chain
Proportion of e-SAF in fuel mix used by airline 1.2%
Levers selection to improve financial attractiveness - user inputs required
Policy support Unit Value Duration (years)ON/OFF
Subsidised power pricing €/MWh discount ON
Subsidised hydrogen pricing €/kg H2 discount ON
Grant funding mn €ON
Offtaker subsidy €/t e-SAF ON
Subsidised CO2 price €/t CO2 ON
Responible finance Variables (to be removed before publishing)Value ON/OFF
Concessional loans bps reduction of interest rate ON
De-risking measures bps reduction on WACC ON
Market Variable Value Duration (years) ON/OFF
Green premium % on top of HEFA price ON
WW
Plant level outputs
Financial outputs Units Baseline Levers Delta % change
Financing needs bn €0.98 0.98 - 0%
Avg. cash cost €/t e-fuels 4,002 4,002 -
Avg. revenues per tonne (incl. subsidies)€/t e-fuels 2,385 2,385 -
Margin on cash cost %-40%-40%
Project Net Present Value (NPV)bn € (1.24) (1.24) - 0%
Project IRR % 0.0%0.0%
Equity IRR %0.0%0.0%
Levelised costs
Levelised costs of e-Kerosene €/t e-fuels 6,344.68 6,344.68 - 0%
Levelised costs of electricity € / MWh 91.74 91.74 - 0%
Levelised costs of hydrogen € / kg H2 7.32 7.32 - 0%
Comparison to counterfactuals -
LCOX as multiple of historic avg. fossil jet price 10.6x 10.6x 0%LCOX as multiple of historic avg fossil jet price + ETS 5.9x 5.9xLCOX as multiple of avg. historic fossil jet price + DAC (today)2.1x 2.1x 0%
LCOX as a multiple of avg. HEFA price 3x 3x 0%
Estimated increase in price of short haul tickets 4.7%4.7%
Estimated increase in price of long haul tickets 3.5%3.5%
Impact of levers
Baseline NPV (bn €)(1.24)
Subsidised power pricing -
Subsidised hydrogen pricing -
Grant funding -
Offtaker subsidy -
Subsidised CO2 price - Concessional loans -
De-risking measures -
Green premium -
NPV with levers (bn €)(1.24)
0.0x
2.0x
4.0x
6.0x
8.0x
10.0x
12.0x
LCOX as multiple ofhistoric avg. fossil jetprice
LCOX as multiple ofhistoric avg fossil jetprice + ETS
LCOX as multiple ofavg. historic fossil jetprice + DAC (today)
LCOX as a multiple ofavg. HEFA price
Baseline
Levers
More detailed outputs
Resource requirements Unit Value in baseline Value with levers
Installed renewable electricity capacity MW 0 0
Annual renewable electricity consumption MWh 1,601,157 1,601,157
Electrolyser capacity MW 186 186
Annual hydrogen consumption kt H2 25 25
Annual CO2 consumption kt CO2 177 177
Annual e-fuels production kt e-Fuels 55 55
Breakdown of CAPEX Unit Value in baseline Value with levers
RE production mn €0 0
Electrolysis mn €406 406
CO2 capture mn €0 0Hydrocrackingmn €105 105
FT mn €218 218
RWGS mn €247 247
Grant funding mn €0 0
Total mn €976 976
Breakdown of LCOX Unit Value in baseline Value with levers
Cost element
RE production €/ton e-fuel 2666 2666
Electrolysis €/ton e-fuel 1161 1161
CO2 capture €/ton e-fuel 538 538
Hydrocracking €/ton e-fuel 354 354
FT €/ton e-fuel 789 789
RWGS €/ton e-fuel 836 836CAPEX GRANT €/ton e-fuel 0 0Total €/ton e-fuel 6345 6345
Key assumptions
Variable Unit Value
Electrolyser CAPEX €/kW 2343
Direct Air Capture (DAC) CO2 price at year 1 €/tCO2 782
Historical average price kerosene €/t Kerosene 600
Price e-kerosene €/t e-Kerosene 2500
976 976
0
500
1000
1500
Baseline Levers
CA
P
E
X
(
(
m
n
€
)
Breakdown of CAPEX RE production
CO2 capture
Hydrocracking
RWGS
FT
Electrolysis
6345 6345
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Baseline Levers
LC
O
X
(
€
/
t
o
n
e
-fu
e
l
)
Breakdown of LCOX CO2 capture
Hydrocracking
RWGS
FT
Electrolysis
RE production
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
21
The deliverable for task 6 is a report of the economic viability of producing SAF in Mesa County,
including the assumptions used in the analysis, factors influencing uncertainty, and potential financial
and technical challenges. The economic viability analysis will also include a comparison of the
projected minimum selling prices for SAF on the Western Slope with those in other markets, taking
into account available federal, state, and local incentives to better understand the suitability of
establishing a SAF production site in Mesa County and to identify most favorable distribution markets,
some of those concepts illustrated in the following figure:
Figure 7 - Cost + Model example for a HEFA-based SAF, including US incentives
(source: IATA Member Airlines, IATA Sustainability & Economics)
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
22
Task 7 - Executive Summary
Findings from all tasks will be compiled into one comprehensive report, which will also include a
standalone Executive Summary. The main report will provide all the needed information to ascertain
the feasibility to construct a sustainable SAF production facility on the Western Slope of Colorado,
including a feedstock assessment, technology transfer and implementation, logistical needs utilizing
the existing aviation fuel supply chain, a fuel demand forecast and capacity assessment for
Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, Rifle/Garfield Regional Airport, Grand Junction Regional Airport, and
Eagle Regional Airport, and a financial analysis addressing affordability considering all conditions,
including transportation costs.
The standalone Executive Summary will offer a concise yet comprehensive overview of the results,
conclusions, or recommendations from the report, serving as an instrumental tool for the decision-
making process for Pitkin County authorities.
Ultimately, this report will provide government authorities with all the tools and guidance needed to
decide the best way forward for the successful development and deployment of SAF in Pitkin
County. The region will therefore be able to achieve GHG reduction targets, improve local air
quality, promote climate-friendly travel, and create jobs in the clean energy sector.
All documents are intended for public distribution by the Partners and will be governed by the
Colorado Open Records Act.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
23
Section II – Deliverables
Final deliverables will be submitted electronically in English language, all in writing and in PDF
format. Based on our ample expertise as consultants, we suggest for the final report to be presented
in person (alternatively, virtually) at a dedicated event in the company of relevant stakeholders and
government authorities. In person and virtual presentations will be delivered in PowerPoint format.
The above proposal will lead to the following deliverables:
Deliverable 1 – The deliverable for Task 1 will include a narrative on available and potential
feedstock for SAF production in the Western Slope. It will quantify identified existing feedstock
volumes, clarify assumptions and uncertainties, and provide a graphical summary in the form of a
'Feasibility Matrix'. This matrix will outline opportunities and constraints regarding the maturity and
feasibility of each feedstock’s supply chain, along with available technology options
The development of Task 1 involves travel from March 2–17. The team at Savia Consulting will
spend two weeks traveling across the Western Slope surveying the landscape and capabilities on
existing and potential SAF feedstock. This includes in person engagement with local authorities,
industry representatives, community leaders, and feedstock producers, among others. Additionally,
this visit will serve to build needed trust with relevant stakeholders to ensure the analysis relies
heavily on primary data and secures project acceptance.
Deliverable 2 – Task 2 outputs will be presented as a comparison matrix, detailing feasible
technologies and their verified providers. Based on results from Task 1, the matrix will compare
feedstocks used corresponding to production pathways, resulting SAF production volumes,
coproducts, and estimated carbon reduction potential from LCA values.
Deliverable 3 - Based on data provided by Airport Directors, the output for Task 3 will be an
extensive Fuel Usage Report. This report will feature tabulated data on current fuel usage and
demand forecasts for each airport, an in-depth analysis of overall fuel consumption in the Western
Slope region, projections for future aviation fuel demand growth, and detailed documentation of the
assumptions and uncertainties that influence fuel demand and capacity assessment
Deliverable 4 – The deliverable for task 4 is a report comparing existing Western Slope airport fuel
distribution systems with what is required to distribute SAF, including logistics and infrastructure
upgrades.
The development of Task 3-6 involves travel May 18–25 the team at Savia will conduct a second
visit. On this occasion, time will be dedicated to meet in person with Airport Directors to validate jet
fuel projections, as well as consult with local fuel suppliers on the design of the existing jet fuel
transportation and storage methods used at Western Slope airports and their intention to incorporate
low carbon fuels in the range of options available to clients. Additionally, we will appraise in-situ the
suitability of the several locations as potential project sites in Mesa County for SAF processing. This
second visit will also serve to reassure relevant stakeholders that Pitkin County is committed to
finding the best way forward to support regional airports advance GHG reduction goals, improve
local air quality, promote climate-responsible travel, and support clean energy jobs.
Deliverable 5 - The deliverable for Task 5 will be a comprehensive summary report identifying
potential sites for SAF production in Mesa County. This report will include a detailed list of
development needs for each site, as well as an in-depth analysis of the benefits and challenges
associated with each location. The evaluation will cover various factors such as accessibility,
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
24
infrastructure requirements, environmental impact, and potential for scalability. The goal is to
provide a thorough assessment that supports informed decision-making for the development of SAF
production facilities in the region.
Deliverable 6 – The output for Task 6 is a report on the economic viability of producing SAF in
Mesa County. It will cover assumptions used, factors influencing uncertainty, and potential financial
and technical challenges. The analysis will also compare projected minimum selling prices for SAF
in the Western Slope with other markets, considering federal, state, and local incentives to assess
suitability for establishing a SAF production site and identify the most favorable distribution
markets.
Deliverable 7 – The final report will compile findings from all tasks, including a detailed assessment
of SAF production feasibility on the Western Slope of Colorado. It will cover feedstock assessments,
technology transfer, logistical needs, fuel demand forecasts for various airports, and a financial
analysis. The standalone Executive Summary will provide a concise overview, aiding Pitkin County
authorities in decision-making. The report aims to guide the successful development of SAF,
achieving GHG reduction targets, improving air quality, promoting climate-friendly travel, and
creating clean energy jobs.
Pitkin County shall provide input to all deliverables no later than one week after delivery. Savia
Consulting will be available for follow-up meetings to elaborate on the contents of the deliverables,
make any necessary adjustments, and discuss the best means for implementation. Any longer time
requirements or modification on the framework for revisions by Pitkin County will be considered
and the timeline revised accordingly.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
25
Section III – Timeline
Internal preparatory activities by Savia Consulting will begin the second week of February 17th,
2025, including a kick-off meeting (KoM) with Pitkin County authorities. The objective of this KoM
is to ensure alignment among both teams on the proposed project’s scope, approach, methodology,
and actions to ultimately reach a final version of the course of work. The Work Plan will be
delivered no later than one week after the KoM. The project is scheduled to start on March 3rd, 2025.
The conclusion of the development of all content is scheduled for June 30th, 2025. The final report’s
revision period for Pitkin County will run during the first week of July, 2025; IATA will take one
week to edit accordingly and deliver the final report and executive summary no later than July 11th,
2025.
All the specified timeframes will be reconsidered if the deliverables' revision framework outlined in
the previous section is altered.
If so desired by Pitkin County, Savia Consulting will be delighted to make ourselves available to
conclude the project with an in-person presentation of the final report on a date to be agreed upon by
both parties.
Following is a detailed timeline illustrated on a Gantt chart:
[purposedly left blank]
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
26
Section III – Timeline (cont’)
February
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20
Contract signing ◊
Project Management
Internal KoM
KOM w/Partners
Interim Reviews ◊◊◊◊
Secondary data collection & workplan development
Stakeholder engagement
On-site visit & primary data collection
Content development
1st Draft - deliverable ◊
Revision period - 1st draft Taks 1 deliverable
Final draft - Taks 1 deliverable ◊◊
Content development
1st Draft - deliverable ◊
Revision period - 1st draft Taks 2 deliverable
Final draft - Taks 2 deliverable ◊
Content development
1st Draft - deliverable ◊
Revision period - 1st draft Taks 3 deliverable
Final draft - Taks 3 deliverable ◊◊
Secondary data collection & stakeholder engagement
On-site visit & primary data collection
Content development
1st Draft - deliverable ◊
Revision period - 1st draft Taks 4 deliverable
Final draft - Taks 4 deliverable ◊
Content development
1st Draft - deliverable ◊
Revision period - 1st draft Taks 5 deliverable
Final draft - Taks 5 deliverable ◊
Content development
1st Draft - deliverable ◊
Revision period - 1st draft Taks 6 deliverable
Final draft - Taks 6 deliverable ◊
Content development
1st Draft - Final report ◊
Revision period - 1st Draft Final Report
Final report & Executive Summary ◊◊
Back office
On-site
Revision period - Pitkin Partners
Adjustment period and final delivery - Consulting Partnership
◊Deliverable
◊Invoice 25%
July
Task 3 - Fuel Usage Projections
(1 week)
Task 7 - Final Report & Executive
Sumary (1 week)
Task 2 - Viable SAF Conversion
Pathways (1 week)
Task 6 - Economic Viability Analysis
(2 weeks)
Task 1 - Feedstock Availability Analysis
(5 weeks)
Task 0 - Project Management,
reporting/other (1 week)
March April May June
Task 4 - Jet Fuel Supply Chain
Assessment (3 weeks)
Task 5 - Site Evaluation (4 weeks)
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
27
Section IV – Financial offer
Consulting Partners offers its professional services as described in the scope description above (up to
the respective Final Presentation) for a sum of USD 409,500 (four hundred nine thousand five-
hundred United States Dollars), inclusive of all project expenses, but exclusive of any applicable
local taxes, duties, fees, levies, and other impositions in the United States of America, which are to
be paid directly or reimbursed by Pitkin County in full.
Payment schedule
All professional fees will be invoiced, as follows:
Upon sign of contract 25%
Upon delivery of Task 1 25%
Upon delivery of Task 3 25%
Upon delivery of Tasks 4 - 7 25%
Total USD 409,500
Savia Consulting is open to evaluating an alternative payment schedule most suitable to both parties
if the above is not congruent with applicable statutes.
Costs break-down:
TASK USD
Task 0 $ 15,000
Task 1 $ 132,150
Task 2 $ 13,125
Task 3 $ 13,125
Task 4 $ 82,500
Task 5 $ 45,000
Task 6 $ 20,250
Task 7 $ 11,250
Travel $ 57,600
Subtotal $ 390,000
Incidentals $ 0.05
Total $ 409,500
Travel costs could be significantly reduced if the County has preferential rates with local hotels or if
the project start date is delayed to coincide with the off-peak season.
Please note that an additional budget to the herein presented shall be allocated in case Pitkin County
requests for the final report to be presented in person.
This proposal is valid for a period of 60 days.
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
28
Annex I - Qualifications of Proposer:
This annex provides the detailed CV of the proposers and the contact information for individuals
who may provide references on past work experience relevant to the skills and capacities needed for
the successful completion of this RFP.
[purposedly left blank]
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
29
CV of Proposers
Keith Lawless
Role in Project: Senior Renewable Aviation Consultant
Current Position: Vice-President Renewable Aviation, SAF+ International Group
Specialization: Renewable Aviation
Nationality: Canadian
Keith Lawless is an experienced executive with a strong background in aviation and environmental
management. He currently serves as the VP of Renewable Aviation at SAF+ International Group and
the Managing Director of Savia Consulting. Since 2022, Keith has been instrumental in preparing a
SAF feasibility study for a major West African country under ICAO's auspices and consulting with
airlines and airports on optimizing GHG reporting and regulatory compliance. He has also secured
millions of dollars in project financing for sustainable aviation development projects. Previously, Keith
worked as the Senior Director of Environment, ETS & Strategic Projects at Air Transat from 2001 to
2022. In this role, he developed Air Transat’s first Strategic Planning process and climate-related
disclosure report, implemented a cost reduction program saving over $24 million annually, and led
fleet studies and the retirement of the A310 fleet, pioneering aircraft recycling in Quebec. Keith was a
founding member of the Air Transat fuel efficiency team, contributing to the airline's recognition as
one of the most fuel-efficient airlines globally. He also established an award-winning environment
department and achieved the first Canadian LEED EB Platinum certification for Air Transat’s head
office.
Career
SAF+ International Group 2022-Present
Vice-President Renewable Aviation
Savia Consulting 2022-Present
Managing Director
Air Transat, Montreal 2001-2022
Senior Director, Environment, ETS & Strategic Projects
Montupet, Canada (Québec) 1999-2001
Production Director, V8 Block
USC Consulting Group, North America 1992-1999
Project Manager
Stelco Steel-Stelwire Division, Canada (Ontario) 1988-1990
Process Engineer
Relevant Project Experience
2022-Present
• Under the auspices of ICAO, prepared a SAF feasibility study for a major West African
country.
• Consulted with airlines and airports on optimizing GHG reporting and regulatory compliance.
• Secured millions of dollars in project financing from airlines and investors for sustainable
aviation development projects.
2001-2022:
Some major achievements during his time in Air Transat:
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
30
• Helped to develop Air Transat’s first Strategic Planning process and plan
• Authored Transat’s first climate-related disclosure report
• Implemented a cost reduction program resulting in savings of over $24 million per year via the
implementation of new systems, processes and reporting
• Led fleet studies such as replacement of L1011s, introduction of narrow-body B737s, and
A321NEO replacement of A310s
• Responsible for the retirement of A310 fleet, including the sale of parts and the recycling of
retired aircraft (a first in Quebec)
• A founding member and key contributor in the Air Transat fuel efficiency team that has
produced millions of dollars in fuel savings and hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GHG
reductions, helping Air Transat to be recognized as one of the most fuel efficient airlines in the
world (as per Atmosfair)
• Led benchmarking and strategy studies for the executive team
• Started an environment department from scratch, building it into an award-winning program
recognized as one of the best in the industry
• Obtained the first Canadian LEED EB Platinum certification for Air Transat`s head office,
amongst other environmental certifications and awards.
• Responsible for greenhouse gas reporting and regulatory compliance
• Developed new class of service, premium economy (Option +)
• Implemented cashless transactions for on-board sales,
• Led an innovative project to secure a supply of sustainable aviation fuel produced from waste
industrial gas (SAF+) and helped to develop one of the world’s first e-SAF offtake agreements
• Responsible for Air Transat’s climate and GHG reporting (EU ETS, CORSIA)
• Implemented climate adaptation initiatives (ex. heat island reduction, apiculture)
• Won the Globe and Mail’s Clean50 award in 2021 which recognizes Canada’s top leaders in
sustainability
Education
• Christ Church, Oxford University (2013)
Business Leader Development Program Certificate
• Air Transat (in-house) (2005-2007)
Basic Mechanic and Flight Training
• McGill University & Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium (1992)
Master of Business Administration
• McGill University (1988)
Bachelor’s degree Engineering (Metallurgy)
Languages
French, English, and basic Spanish
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
31
Damiana Serafini
Role in Project: Project Manager - Economist
Current Position: Senior Manager – IATA Sustainability Consulting
Specialization: SAF and aviation expert
Nationality: Argentina / Italy
Damiana brings 20 years of experience on a broad range of environmental and economics topics such
as CO2 emissions accounting, reporting, and disclosure, development and deployment of sustainable
aviation fuels, market-based mechanisms and chain of custody models, and various environmental
regulation topics across the aviation value chain. As IATA’s senior consultant, Damiana is leading
Project ALIGHT. This is a research and innovation programme funded by the European Union's
Horizon 2020, aimed at bringing forward the necessary solutions, knowledge, guidelines, and best
practice handbooks supporting an efficient airport paradigm shift towards zero emission aviation and
airport operation, with a strong focus on SAF supply and usage in preparation for ReFuelEU
compliance. Damiana also acts as IATA’s focal point for the development of ESG sections within an
airport’s master plan. Before joining IATA, Damiana conducted feasibility studies on the development
and deployment of SAF for Trinidad and Tobago and Zimbabwe under ICAO’s Act-SAF programme.
Similarly, she worked for the USA EPA Smartway programme as technical consultant in the
development and launch of Chile’s of green freight program ‘Giro Limpio,’ the only and first such
programme to include the aviation industry.
Ms. Serafini is an expert in climate negotiations, ESG planning and implementation, PPPs, renewable
fuels & energy, energy efficiency, and the optimization of natural resources to accelerate rural and
urban sustainable growth. As a skilled communicator. Her multicultural background and excellent
communication skills allows her to thrive in diverse work environments across nations (Asia, Africa,
America, Europe, Oceania) acting as a bridge to connect developed and developing countries.
Career
International Air Transport Association (IATA) 2023- Present
Senior consultant, IATA Sustainability Consulting
International Civil Aviation Organization - ICAO, United Nations 2023
Technical Consultant on Sustainable Alternative Fuels for Aviation - Zimbabwe
World Bank & Ricardo Plc, Energy & Environment 2020-2022
Independent Consultant – Low Emissions Freight Transport Systems
ERG Consulting & US EPA Smartway 2019-2020
Senior Sustainability Technical Consultant - Low Emissions Transport Systems
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) 2018-2019
Transport Manager
International Civil Aviation Organization - ICAO, United Nations 2018-2016
Technical Consultant on Sustainable Alternative Fuels for Aviation – Trinidad and Tobago
International Air Transport Association – IATA 2015-2016
Technical Consultant on Sustainable Aviation Fuels
Biocombustibles Sustentables Argentina S.A. 2009-2016
Chairwoman & CEO – Feedstock and Sustainable Aviation Fuels Production
Round Table on Sustainable Biomaterials – RSB 2009-2012
Steering Board Member & Representative to Biofuel Producers
Relevant Project Experience
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
32
2024
• IATA: leading the development of Work Package 3 - Implementation and usage of Sustainable
Aviation Fuels
2023
• ICAO: led the feasibility studies for Trinidad & Tobago and Zimbabwe on development and
deployment of sustainable aviation fuels for ICAO.
2019-2020
• US EPA Smartway: conducted baselines studies on CO2 emissions from freight transport
systems in Chile for the road, aviation, and maritime sector aimed at the development and launch
of Chile’s green freight programme – Giro Limpio.
2018-2019
• WBCSD: led a multistakeholder PPPs initiative to accelerate the adoption of business solutions
to reduce emissions along the air cargo value chain.
2015-2016
• IATA: research and evaluation the social and economic impacts of sustainability certification
requirements on small scale farmers.
2009-2012
• RSB: represented biofuel Industrial Producers during the development and launch of the
Roundtable for Sustainable Biomaterials certification scheme.
Education
• Instituto Tecnológico de Buenos Aires- ITBA (2023)
MBA Candidate - Strategic Management and Technological Innovation
• University of Connecticut – Uconn (2010)
Master of Science- Agriculture and Resource Economics
• University of Connecticut – Uconn (2004)
Bachelor of General Studies - Occupational Safety and Health
• Norwalk Community College (2000)
Associate of Arts- Liberal Arts with Honors Option
Languages
Spanish, English, and basic French
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
RFP 020.25 Rev. 2021.10.11 CDD
Budget Line Item #: 10014140.531000.10328
33
References
1. Dr. Neil Dickson, Chief, Environmental Standards, ICAO, 999 Robert-Bourassa Boulevard,
Montréal, Québec H3C 5H7, NDickson@icao.int, tel: +1 514-954-6423/ mobile: +1 514-
812-0737, Feasibility studies on SAF development and deployment for Trinidad and Tobago,
Cote D’Ivoire, and Zimbabwe - ACT-SAF programme ICAO.
2. Pierre Gonthier, President & CEO SAF+ International Group, 4012 Wellington St #2,
Montreal, Quebec H4G 1V3, p.gonthier@safplusig.com, tel: +1 514 501 1096, eSAF
development projects in Canada and Europe (techno-economic studies, financing,
engineering, etc.)
3. Captain Dave Bourdages, Vice-President Flight Operations, 5959 Boulevard Cote Vertu
Ouest, Saint-Laurent, QC H4S 2E6, +1 514 451-1300 dbourdag@transat.com, airline SAF
strategy and deployment
4. Aoife O’Leary,CEO, Opportunity Green/SASHA Coalition, aoife@opportunitygreen.org. tel:
+44 7526092615, SAF Policy development Europe
It is further understood that the right is reserved by the County to reject any and all proposals and it
is agreed that the proposals may not be withdrawn for a period of ten (10) days from specified time
for receiving proposals.
The Proposer acknowledges receipt of Addenda Nos.
The right is reserved to waive any informalities and to reject any Proposal.
Dated this day of January 24th, 2025.
Savia Consulting:
Keith Lawless Damiana Serafini
bocc.con.020.25 Attachment B - Savia Proposal Documents
Damiana Serafini
0 4 5 9 8 5 7 2 6
X
1 Lufberry Ln, apt # 5
Norwalk, CT 06851
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 716E5D50-BBCE-4033-A15B-D2D44EC46C78 Status: Completed
Subject: Savia Consulting | Pitkin County Contract 020.25 R.1 for Review and Signature
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 76 Signatures: 5 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 Pitkin County Procurement
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Disabled
Time Zone: (UTC-07:00) Mountain Time (US & Canada)
530 East Main Street
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
Procurement@PitkinCounty.com
IP Address: 65.38.144.66
Record Tracking
Status: Original
4/8/2025 10:25:42 AM
Holder: Pitkin County Procurement
Procurement@PitkinCounty.com
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Michael Port
michael.port@pitkincounty.com
Climate Action Analyst
Pitkin County
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 65.38.144.66
Sent: 4/8/2025 10:32:05 AM
Viewed: 4/8/2025 10:38:31 AM
Signed: 4/8/2025 10:38:48 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Damiana Serafini
damiana.serafini@gmail.com
SAF Expert - Savia Consulting
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 163.116.168.118
Sent: 4/8/2025 10:38:50 AM
Viewed: 4/9/2025 1:52:00 AM
Signed: 4/10/2025 3:28:55 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 4/9/2025 1:52:00 AM
ID: 7d0f4685-1b30-4707-aed9-a7dbfb840b2b
Company Name: Pitkin County, Colorado
Rich Englehart
rich.englehart@pitkincounty.com
Deputy County Manager
Pitkin County
Signing Group: County Manager Group
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 172.103.36.130
Signed using mobile
Sent: 4/10/2025 3:28:58 AM
Viewed: 4/10/2025 6:37:17 AM
Signed: 4/10/2025 6:37:40 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Pitkin County Procurement
procurement@pitkincounty.com
Procurement Specialist
Pitkin County
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 4/10/2025 6:37:42 AM
Resent: 4/10/2025 6:37:47 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Accounts Payable
AP@pitkincounty.com
Accounts Payable
Pitkin County
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 4/10/2025 6:37:43 AM
Viewed: 4/10/2025 12:27:03 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Keith Lawless
keithlawless2295@gmail.com
Senior Renewable Aviation Consultant
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 4/10/2025 6:37:43 AM
Viewed: 4/10/2025 6:56:23 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 3/31/2025 8:33:15 AM
ID: 5c02afa1-c71e-49e9-b034-4548b5bc7deb
Company Name: Pitkin County, Colorado
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 4/8/2025 10:32:05 AM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 4/10/2025 6:37:17 AM
Signing Complete Security Checked 4/10/2025 6:37:40 AM
Completed Security Checked 4/10/2025 6:37:43 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure
ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE
From time to time, Pitkin County (we, us or Pitkin County) may be required by law to provide
you with certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for
providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically when we send you documents for
electronic signature.
Acknowledging your Access, Intent, and Consent to Receive and Sign Materials
Electronically
To confirm that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other
electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to
read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save
this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and
consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference
and access. Further, if you consent to receive notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic
format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the 'I agree'
button below.
By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that:
I am establishing my intent to be bound to the transaction, and indicating that I am fully
aware of the purpose for which the signature is being provided.
I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF
ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURES document; and
I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can
print it, for future reference and access; and
Until or unless I notify Pitkin County as described above, I consent to receive from
exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations,
acknowledgments, and other documents that are required to be provided or made
available to me by Pitkin County during the course of my relationship with you.
Signing Documents without a Pitkin County DocuSign Account:
Pitkin County may not require all document signers to be authorized users of the Pitkin County
DocuSign Account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can
access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and
conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of this
document. When you don't have a DocuSign account, you will be provided the opportunity to
agree to the Legal Disclosure each time you open an "envelope" for signing, at this time, you can
download and retain this disclosure. Pitkin County will forward completed documents that
you've reviewed, processed or signed via email. Should you require copies of these signed
documents (e.g., if they get deleted from your email account) you should request those
documents from Pitkin County under the Colorado Open Records Act by contacting the Pitkin
County custodian who sent you the document for signature.
Signing Documents with a Pitkin County DocuSign Account:
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 3/20/2020 3:28:13 PM
Parties agreed to: Damiana Serafini, Keith Lawless
Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this
information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please
confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of this document.
Getting paper or electronic copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper or electronic copy of any record provided or made
available electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of
the DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to
you through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such
documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper or
electronic copies of any such documents from our office to you, you may be charged a per-page
fee. You may request delivery of such paper or electronic copies from us by following the
procedure described below.
Withdrawing your consent
If you are an authorized DocuSign Account holder, you can decide to receive notices and
disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that
thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. Described
below is the process for informing us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in
paper format and also how to withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures
electronically.
Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the
speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to
you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format,
and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such
paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must
withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your
DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive
required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your
DocuSign user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign
electronically documents from us.
All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically
Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide
electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures,
authorizations, acknowledgments, and other documents that are required to be provided or made
available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you
inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required
notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given
us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through
the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as
described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the
consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures
electronically from us.
How to contact Pitkin County:
You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically,
to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to
receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:
To contact us by email send messages to Helpdesk@provelocity.com
To advise Pitkin County of your new e-mail address
To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures
electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at Helpdesk@provelocity.com and
in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail
address .
In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected
in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign.
To request paper or electronic copies from Pitkin County
To request delivery from us of paper or electronic copies of the notices and disclosures
previously provided by us to you electronically, you should request those documents from Pitkin
County under the Colorado Open Records Act by contacting the Pitkin County custodian who
sent you the document for signature.
To withdraw your consent with Pitkin County
To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic
format you may:
i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent
page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may;
ii. send us an e-mail to Helpdesk@provelocity.com and in the body of such a request, you
must state your e-mail, full name, Postal Address, telephone number, and account
number.