Seaweed Processing Tech Analysis RFP Questions and Answers

	A	B
1	Washington State Seaweed Processing Tech Analysis RFP, Questions and Answers
2	Last updated: 12/4/2025, 4:00:53 PM	Link to recording of Informational Webinar (Dec. 1, 12:00pm PT)
3		Passcode: 97Eks$TL
4
5
6	Bidder Questions	Maritime Blue Answers
7	Is the end date firm? Could it be adjusted to the end of April?	End date is firm, and based on the end date of the grant. This output needs to inform our other outputs that will be wrapped at the end of April.
8	For interviewing the existing WA state processors and other stakeholders, how formal do you want the interviews to be? Do you need a full transcript or just a summary?	We'd like to leave this up to the proposers. We want the prospers to have some flexibility here to articulate a project and approach that they think will be most effective. Competitive candidates will be comfortable navigating conversations with the different actor groups that have been suggested, and so should tell us what style of engagement will work best.
9	What is the expected engagement from the "key partners" (Maritime Blue, Lummi Island, Blue Dot)? Specifically, for Maritime Blue and the growers - how engaged will the contractor be with these actors during the course of the work?	- Maritime Blue can be seen as the primary contact and client, and contractor should plan for regular check-ins accordingly; but contractor should consider themselves an independent researcher in terms of the research. - Farmers and other partners are eager to support the process and invested in the results, but won’t be involved in day-to-day oversight or activities. - We suggest proposers articulate in their proposal where they need key touch points with these other partners. - Maritime Blue will provide some contacts of “key players” that can be used as starting points, but we expect the contractor to be able to fill gaps in this contact list.
10	Cost analysis and product pricing- are there any example documents and formats that we’re looking for as guidance?	Format is open to the contractor's discretion. We recognize that there will be significant uncertainty around both the costs of production and the actual price points of final products - we are more looking for information on price point ranges for similar, existing products that can be compared with estimated investment costs for different processing tech. For example - information on the range of prices of seaweed-based biostimulants on the market today presented in comparison with prices for seaweed-based or waste-stream-based agricultural mulches available today can help support decisions between the different processing tech needed to make these two products.
11	Sees the analysis is really comprehensive and looking to do a lot. Are there any high priorities that could be better identified?	We recognize that this is an ambitious project. The budget is not flexible, so the proposers should plan to articulate a process that they feel can be accomplished within the hours covered by the available funds. We invite proposers to suggest a methodology for limiting research that cannot be comprehensive - e.g., interviewing agricultural processors within X miles of the coast and major trade routs, rather than interviewing all ag processors in WA state. With this said, we note that the objectives articulated in the RFP are our priorities - we are looking for someone who can provide the necessary information to inform these key questions within the budget available. So the proposer should articulate a methodology/ process for providing that information and achieving those objectives within those bounds.
12	How important to this analysis is it for the consultant to have "boots on the ground" in WA?	Not particularly important. We don't envision the contractor doing any travel or site visits. Interviews and desktop research should be sufficient.
13	RFP says the contractor should be able to do business in the US but was stated in webinar that they should be able to do business in Washington state - can you clarify?	Apologies - contractors need to be licensed to do business within the US, not necessarily within Washington. However, they should be available during Pacific Time working hours and generally able to logistically engage with the MB team and with other key stakeholders to the project who are based in WA.
14	Other than sugar kelp and Ulva, are there other species to note as a priority for WA? Should any species be excluded?	Currently the only seaweed being farmed in Washington state is sugar kelp, and then the Ulva occurs naturally on our shellfish farms, so these are definitely the two priority species to consider (Ulva for the ag input category only). There are some farmers "in the pipeline" with interest in growing bull kelp as well, so it would be interesting to also explore bull kelp (and I will add that there are key differences to consider that could affect processing tech, like the amount of water is much higher in bull kelp), but sugar and Ulva are the immediate priorities.
15	Is there a preference in considering technology platforms outside the US vs. domestic?	We don't have any preference around origins of the processing tech/ platform - it's totally fine to consider tech that's only currently operational in another country, for example - but the goal is to identify the right tech/ platform for Washington state. So all the criteria we'd want information on would be about how much it would cost etc. to build and implement that platform somewhere here in WA.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100