EVALUATION REPORT. Prepared for: Plainfield Public Schools Board of Education. By: The Plainfield Public Schools Evaluation Team

Transcription

1 EVALUATION REPORT Evaluation of Proposals Received on November 30, 2017 in Response to a Request for Proposals for a Developer of a Photovoltaic System to be Located on Facilities and Lands Owned by Plainfield Public School District Board of Education, Union County, New Jersey Prepared for: Plainfield Public Schools Board of Education By: The Plainfield Public Schools Evaluation Team Dated: January 19,

2 Evaluation Report Table of Contents Report Sections Page Executive Summary Overview of the RFP Responses to the RFP Decision Making Strategy and Proposal Evaluation Matrix Evaluation: Financial Benefits Evaluation: Technical Design & Approach Evaluation: Respondent s Experience Evaluation: Commercial Factors Evaluation: Education Value Trade-Offs Between Options Sensitivity Analysis Recommendation Attachments Solar Proposal Summary Attachment 1 Proposal Ranking Evaluation Matrix Attachment 2 Economic Analysis Summary Attachment 3 Sensitivity Analysis Attachment 4 1

3 Executive Summary This Report is being provided pursuant to the requirements of the competitive contracting provisions of the Public School Contracts Law, specifically, N.J.S.A. 18A:18A-4.1(k); LFN , dated December 3, 2008, Contracting for Renewable Energy Services; BPU protocol for measuring energy savings in PPA agreements (Public Entity Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Cost Savings Guidelines, dated February 20, 2009); LFN , dated June 12, 2009, Contracting for Renewable Energy Services: Update on Power Purchase Agreements, and all other applicable law. The purpose of the Evaluation Report is to provide the Plainfield Public Schools Board of Education (hereafter referred to as Plainfield BOE or "BOE"), with an evaluation of proposals received for its planned solar project and to provide a recommendation to the BOE. The goal of the BOE is to implement a solar energy project that is environmentally responsible, visually appealing and economically beneficial to the BOE. To this end, on October 20, 2017, the BOE issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP"), as amended, for a Power Purchase Agreement ("PPA") for the purchase by the BOE of electricity generated by photovoltaic solar energy systems ("Systems") implemented by a proposing firm ( Respondent ) to the RFP, at its sole cost and expense (the Respondent to be awarded the project will be referred to as the "Successful Respondent"), to be located on facilities and lands owned by the Plainfield BOE, in the County of Union, New Jersey. Pursuant to the RFP, the Successful Respondent will finance, design, permit, acquire, construct, install, operate and maintain the System, all in accordance with the terms set forth in the RFP including on the Successful Respondent s PPA Price Quotation Proposal Forms. The Successful Respondent will also have all ownership rights to the Solar Renewable Energy Certificates ("SRECs") generated by the Systems at each school and will monetize the SRECs. The RFP contained a preliminary feasibility assessment performed by the BOE s energy consultant, Gabel Associates, which estimated the technical potential for the System at the BOE s facility and identified site specific conditions of note. The RFP included three proposal options; one mandatory and two elective proposal options. The mandatory Option 1, as set forth in Article II of the RFP, included roof-mounted systems to be developed at Plainfield High School, Cedarbrook Elementary School, Emerson Elementary School, Jefferson Elementary School/PAAAS, Washington Elementary School, Maxson Middle School, and Hubbard Middle School. Plainfield BOE also encouraged, but did not require, Respondents to submit proposals for the following two additional options. Option 2 consisted of the roof-mounted systems required in Option 1 with the inclusion of a carport canopy-mounted system in the parking lot of Jefferson Elementary School/PAAAS. Option 3 included the requirements contained in Option 1 and Option 2 along with a carport canopy-mounted system in the parking lots of Plainfield High School. Additionally, Respondents were permitted to provide additional proposals based on their own due diligence, feasibility assessments, and alternate strategies, as long as the Respondents 2

4 included a proposal on the mandatory proposal Option 1. These alternative proposals could include areas of the District property not explicitly included in the options. Under the RFP, the BOE retained sole discretion to select the proposal option under which the PPA, if any, will be awarded. As set forth in the RFP, the Successful Respondent and the BOE will enter into a 15-year PPA under which the BOE will purchase electricity produced from the System at a scheduled rate per kwh. Pursuant to law, the PPA price must be lower than the delivered cost of power from the local electric utility company; i.e. Public Service Electric and Gas Company ( PSE&G ). This PPA structure provides the BOE with a reduction in its energy expenditures and minimizes the uncertainty that may result from price increases in the electricity market during the 15-year term of the PPA, in addition to other benefits that may be realized by the BOE. At the conclusion of the PPA Term, the BOE will have various options for continued operation, all of which are likely to result in significant long-term savings for the remaining life of the equipment. The RFP encouraged respondents to include educational and curriculum-based content as part of the proposed solution. To evaluate proposals, the BOE organized an evaluation team comprised of District personnel and supporting legal and energy professionals (collectively, Evaluation Team ). The Evaluation Team developed the RFP, administered the procurement process (including site visits, RFP addenda, and written Q&A), determined legal completeness and technical compliance of the proposals received, conducted interviews with proposing teams, completed a detailed economic analysis, performed a collective evaluation and proposal ranking by consensus, and drafted this consensus-based Evaluation Report for consideration by the BOE in making an award decision. Evaluation of the proposals was based on point-ranking in a variety of categories, including financial benefits, technical design and approach factors, Respondent experience, and other factors as defined in the Evaluation Matrix included in the RFP 1. Plainfield BOE received proposals from nine (9) solution providers (hereafter referred to as "Respondents") on November 30, 2017 in response to the RFP, including: Ameresco, Inc. Advanced Solar Products / Spano Partners Holdings Altus Power America / Dobtol EZNergy Ferreira Construction Co., Inc. / Summit Water Capital Advisors GE / Ray Angelini, Inc. HESP Solar Onyx Renewable Partners SunVest Solar, Inc. Following a legal and preliminary economic review, all proposals were considered complete and legally compliant with the requirements of the RFP. EZNergy requested to withdraw their proposal prior to completion of the evaluation process. 1 In accordance with the Competitive Contracting requirements of the Public School Contracts Law, the Evaluation Matrix was developed and published prior to the receipt of proposals in response to the RFP. 3

5 The Evaluation Team completed interviews of the remaining eight (8) Respondents. These interviews were followed by detailed technical and financial analysis, formal ranking of the proposals as per the evaluation criteria published in the RFP, and development of this Evaluation Report. The Evaluation Team developed a consensus ranking of each proposal within each evaluation category, leading to an overall score for each proposal between 0 and 100. The proposal with the highest score represents the strongest weighted-balance of all factors considered. Based on information contained within the proposals, and additional information collected during the oral interviews, the Evaluation Team scored the eight (8) proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified in the RFP. Table 1 below summarizes the scores for each of the proposals: Table 1: Evaluation of Proposals Respondent Option PPA Rate Annual ($/kwh) Escalation Rate Score Ameresco 1 $ % Ameresco 3 $ % 46 ASP/Spano 1 $ % 95 ASP/Spano 2 $ % 95 ASP/Spano 3 $ % Altus/Dobtol 1 $ % Altus/Dobtol 2 $ % 76.3 Altus/Dobtol 3 $ % 69.3 Ferreira 1 $ % GE/RAI 1 $ % GE/RAI 2 $ % GE/RAI 3 $ % HESP 1 $ % HESP 2 $ % 82.8 HESP 3 $ % Onyx 1 $ % Onyx 2 $ % 84.5 Onyx 3 $ % Onyx Alt $ % SunVest 1 $ % SunVest 2 $ % SunVest 3 $ % 92 SunVest Alt. $ % 92 4

6 HESP Solar, Onyx, and SunVest all provided alternative proposals. After technical review it was determined that the HESP Solar alternative proposal included roof area that would require roof penetrations. The RFP specifically called for systems that do not require roof penetrations, as such this alternative proposal from HESP Solar was not evaluated any further. Economic merit, particularly regarding savings through reduced utility bill payments, were specifically evaluated for each proposal. All proposals under the mandatory Option 1, the elective Option 2, and the alternative proposals provide savings, measured as the difference between the solar PPA rate and what it would cost to purchase the same electricity from the utility. Certain proposals received under elective Option 3 presented no or negative savings over the term. The strongest ranked proposal under mandatory Option 1, from Advanced Solar Products and Spano Partners Holdings, provides savings of approximately $83,220 in the first year, approximately $202,214 in the second year, and an approximate 15-yr Net Present Value of savings of $2,377,391. The strongest ranked proposal under elective Option 2, from Advanced Solar Products and Spano Partners Holdings, provides savings of approximately $49,049 in the first year, approximately $188,410 in the second year, and an approximate 15-yr Net Present Value of savings of $2,244,733. The strongest ranked proposal under elective Option 3, from SunVest, provides savings of approximately $11,924 in the first year, approximately $148,686 in the second year, and an approximate 15-yr Net Present Value of savings of $1,833,550. The strongest ranked alternative proposal, from SunVest, provides savings of approximately $102,879 in the first year, approximately $225,594 in the second year and an approximate 15-yr Net Present Value of savings of $2,787,710. The Evaluation Team finds that the proposals deliver meaningful savings for the BOE, are competitive with current market practice, and deliver other benefits that are significant. Based on an evaluation of price and other factors, the Evaluation Team recommends that Advanced Solar Products with Spano Partners Holdings proposal Option 1 be selected by the BOE as the Successful Respondent to the RFP, and that ASP/Spano be awarded the PPA. Further, the Evaluation Team recommends that the BOE allow EZNergy to withdraw its proposal as requested. 5

7 1. Overview of the RFP On October 20, 2017, Plainfield BOE issued an RFP for a PPA for the purchase by the BOE of electricity generated by the System to be financed, designed, installed, owned, operated and maintained by the Successful Respondent at multiple locations throughout the district. The BOE sought proposals for a mandatory "Option 1" as set forth in Article II of the RFP, which included roof-mounted solar arrays to be developed at Plainfield High School, Cedarbrook Elementary School, Emerson Elementary School, Jefferson Elementary School/PAAAS, Washington Elementary School, Maxson Middle School, and Hubbard Middle School. The RFP also included two (2) optional proposals. Option 2 consisted of the roof-mounted systems required in Option 1 with the inclusion of a carport canopy-mounted system in the parking lot of Jefferson Elementary School/PAAAS. Option 3 included the requirements contained in Option 1 and Option 2 along with the inclusion of a carport canopy-mounted system in the parking lots of Plainfield High School. The Successful Respondent and the BOE will enter into a PPA for 15 years, the maximum duration permitted by State law, under which Plainfield BOE will purchase the electricity produced from the System at a fixed rate per kwh. The PPA rate must be less than the local utility electric tariff in its initial year. It is anticipated that the Successful Respondent will finance the project through a combination of revenues derived from the sale to the BOE of the electrical output of the System, the sale of Solar Renewable Energy Certificates ("SRECs") in the competitive SREC market, federal tax benefits (i.e. both investment tax credits and accelerated depreciation) and investor capital. At the end of the PPA term, the BOE will have the following three options: 1. Have the System removed at the Successful Respondent s expense; or 2. Renegotiation of an extension of the PPA, if allowable by law; or 3. Purchase the System by the BOE at fair market value ("FMV"). Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of price and non-price criteria, in accordance with competitive contracting provisions of the Public School Contracts Law, specifically, N.J.S.A. 18A:18A-4.1(k); LFN , dated December 3, 2008, Contracting for Renewable Energy Services; BPU protocol for measuring energy savings in PPA agreements (Public Entity Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Cost Savings Guidelines, dated February 20, 2009); LFN , dated June 12, 2009, Contracting for Renewable Energy Services: Update on Power Purchase Agreements, and all other applicable law. Components of the RFP are as follows: a) Solar Systems Size A preliminary feasibility assessment was performed by the BOE s energy consultant, Gabel Associates, to identify the technical potential for a solar system at the Plainfield BOE. Based upon this preliminary assessment, the System was estimated to have a total capacity of approximately MW DC depending on the carports included. The preliminary system size was capped at no greater than 80% of the total onsite electricity usage. The cap was 6

8 implemented to ensure that the System would not generate more electricity than was needed in a given year. The RFP required that all proposals not exceed this annual generation cap. The RFP provided Respondents with twelve (12) months of electric usage data and utility tariff information for the facilities included in the RFP. b) Pricing and Other Commercial Requirements The RFP required the Respondents to propose a PPA Price, and an annual escalation rate, if any, for a mandatory Option 1 proposal. The RFP also included an Option 2 and Option 3, which were not mandatory. Respondents were free (and encouraged) to provide other proposals that might offer additional value to the school. In addition, all Respondents were required to provide a price adjustment factor to account for any unforeseen electrical interconnection costs. These adjustment factors provide a controlled way for unforeseen cost changes to be handled after award, if required. The RFP also contained specific standard terms that were to be included in the PPA agreement, as well as standard requirements for bonding, insurance, etc. c) Technical Requirements The RFP provided Technical Specifications as well as special site conditions as a preliminary guide for the Respondents proposed System. These Exhibits were to be used as the minimum requirements to satisfy the RFP. Proposals were required to include the following information about each Respondent: Proposal Option 1 - PPA Price Quotation Respondent Information/Cover Letter Consent of Surety Form of Construction Performance Bond Agreement for Proposal Security in Lieu of Proposal Bond Proposal Bond Ownership Disclosure Statement Statement of Respondent s Qualifications Acknowledgement of Receipt of Addenda Disclosure of Investment Activities in Iran Non-Collusion Affidavit Consent to Investigation Affirmative Action Compliance/Mandatory EEO Language Proposal Checklist Public Works Contractor Certificate (N.J.S.A 34: ) Notice of Classification (RFP Section 4.14) Total Amount of Uncompleted Contracts Form DPMC701 (RFP Section 4.14) 7

9 Business Registration Certificate (RFP Section 4.12) d) Evaluation Process To evaluate proposals, the BOE organized an evaluation team comprised of: Sean Sutton, Director of Buildings and Grounds; Philip E. Stern, Esq., of DiFrancesco Bateman, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer, & Flaum, P.C., Board Counsel; and Andrew Conte and Bojan Mitrovic of Gabel Associates (collectively, Evaluation Team ). Gary Ottman, Business Administrator and Yolanda Koon, Assistant Business Administrator/Acting Board Secretary assisted with the development of the RFP and participated in interviews, but for personal reasons were not included in the evaluation of the Respondents. The Evaluation Team developed the RFP, administered the procurement process (including site visits, RFP addenda, and written Q&A), determined legal completeness and technical compliance of the proposals received, conducted oral interviews with proposing teams, completed a detailed evaluation and proposal ranking, and drafted this consensus Evaluation Report for consideration by the BOE in making an award decision. The following milestones summarize the RFP development and evaluation process: 10/20/17 RFP Issued 11/02/17 Pre-proposal Conference and Site Tours 11/15/17 Formal Written Addenda & Q&A Issued 11/30/17 Proposals Received 12/19/17 Oral Interviews with Compliant Respondents 1/18/18 Meeting of Evaluation Team to Rank Proposals 1/19/18 Evaluation Report Issued 8

10 2. Responses to the RFP Plainfield BOE received and evaluated eight (8) compliant proposals in response to the RFP as outlined in Table 2. Each Respondent consisted of a team made up of, at a minimum, a project developer (typically the PPA Provider) and an Engineering, Procurement and Construction ("EPC") company. Under this structure, the PPA Provider is responsible for the financing, design, permitting, acquisition, construction, installation, operation and maintenance of the Systems. To accomplish this task, the PPA Provider will contract with an EPC to complete the required engineering and construction work. A ninth proposal was received from EZNergy, but EZNergy has requested to withdraw their proposal from consideration. This proposal will be absent from the remainder of this Report. The Evaluation Team recommends allowing EZNergy to withdraw its submission. Table 2: Overview of Respondent Teams PPA Provider Spano Partners Holdings (Spano) Altus Power America (Altus) HESP Solar (HESP) New Energy Equity Onyx Development Group (Onyx) Ameresco Current, powered by GE (GE) Summit Water Capital Advisors (Summit) EPC Advanced Solar Products (ASP) Dobtol Construction (Dobtol) HESP Construction (HESP) SunVest Onyx Development Group (Onyx) Ameresco Ray Angelini Inc (RAI) Ferreira Construction Co (Ferreira) The remaining compliant proposals provided all the necessary documentation as required of Respondents by the RFP. Table 3 provides an overview of the proposals that were submitted to the Plainfield BOE. Table 3: Overview of Received Proposals Respondent Option KW PPA Rate Escalation ASP / Spano 1 2,411.2 $ % ASP / Spano 2 2,759.0 $ % ASP / Spano 3 3,417.2 $ % 9

11 Respondent Option KW PPA Rate Escalation Ameresco 1 1,848.0 $ % Ameresco 2 2,653.0 $ % Altus / Dobtol 1 2,235.5 $ % Altus / Dobtol 2 2,484.4 $ % Altus / Dobtol 3 3,116.8 $ % Ferreira 1 2,625.8 $ % GE / RAI 1 2,018.8 $ % GE / RAI 2 2,299.6 $ % GE /RAI 3 2,674.0 $ % HESP 1 2,314.5 $ % HESP 2 2,549.7 $ % HESP 3 3,154.7 $ % Onyx 1 2,535.2 $ % Onyx 2 2,777.4 $ % Onyx 3 3,189.3 $ % Onyx Alt. 3,596.3 $ % SunVest 1 2,197.4 $ % SunVest 2 2,488.0 $ % SunVest 3 3,001.4 $ % SunVest Alt. 2,754.8 $ % Attachment 1 is a detailed summary of the key information from the proposal submitted by each responsive proposing team. 10

12 3. Decision Making Strategy and Proposal Evaluation Matrix Evaluation of the proposals was based on point-ranking in a variety of categories, including financial benefits, technical design factors, Respondent experience, commercial factors, and other factors. The full Evaluation Team developed a consensus ranking of each proposal within each evaluation category, leading to an overall score for each proposal between 0 and 100. The proposal with the highest score represents the strongest weighted-balance of all factors considered. Economic merit, as determined by projected net savings realized by the project, was a dominant factor in the evaluation. As allowed by Competitive Contracting law, it is not the only factor considered in the evaluation. Other considerations, such as risk, design merit, and experience, as well as educational value, are also part of the evaluation. The strongest ranked proposal is based on a combination of relative economic strength along with these other factors. The Evaluation Matrix used for proposal ranking, which was also included in the RFP, is as follows: Category Evaluation Factor WEIGHTING Financial Benefits NPV of Benefits 51 Technical Design / Approach Respondent s Experience Commercial Factors Design Strategy 9 O&M Plan and Approach 8 Project Management Approach 6 Project & Contractor Expertise 7 PPA Provider Experience 4 Type of Production Guarantee 2 PPA Adjustment Factors 4 Commercial Term in PPA 4 Educational Value Educational Materials 5 Total Proposal 100 The Evaluation Matrix scoring for each proposal Option and alternatives are provided in Attachment 2. The following sections of this Evaluation Report provide a review of the evaluation criteria for each Respondent and its associated proposal. 11

13 4. Evaluation: Financial Benefits Plainfield BOE realizes economic benefits from the installation of a solar project through the energy costs savings generated by purchasing electricity from the solar project through a PPA at a cost lower than the cost of electricity that would otherwise be delivered by and/or purchased from the local electric utility (otherwise referred to as grid-sourced electricity). To calculate the potential energy cost savings for the BOE, Gabel Associates prepared a forecast of grid-sourced electricity (the sum of forecasted delivery rates under the local utility tariff rate for Public Service Electric and Gas ( PSE&G ) and the forecasted cost of grid-sourced power supply (considering both third party supplier rates and Basic Generation Service ( BGS or default service) rates) and compared it to the rates proposed by each Respondent. The difference between the forecasted cost of grid-sourced electricity (considering only those cost components that are offset as a result of purchasing solar energy from the Successful Respondent) and the PPA rate is multiplied by the guaranteed solar output to yield the projected savings in energy costs realized over the PPA term. As noted above, the BOE currently purchases electricity through a third-party supplier (Direct Energy) through the Alliance for Competitive Energy Services ( ACES ) cooperative pricing system. This contract is expected to expire at the end of 2018, after the installation of the System. Once the solar project is in service, it may be prudent to review continued participation with third party supply for these particular electric accounts and consider a transition of these accounts back to default supply (known as BGS) at the end of the BOE s current contract commitment. While the cost benefit analysis suggests that this would be the best course of action for the BOE to maximize savings from net metering, the final decision can be made as the project nears commercial operation. The savings calculated from the economic analysis were determined based on a comparison of forecasted BGS supply costs for the remaining electricity purchased by the BOE after the installation of solar to forecasted third party supply costs for electricity if the BOE continued the current purchasing strategy without solar. The Gabel Associates forecast of the local utility delivery tariff rates and the cost of gridsourced power is the result of a detailed analysis of the delivery tariff and the market costs for power supply, by component, over the term of the PPA. The BOE currently procures electricity from a competitive third party electric supplier, as part of the ACES purchasing cooperative, and Gabel Associates has also considered this when conducting the analysis of the total cost of grid sourced power. This detailed analysis takes into account the following factors: 1. The components of the utility delivery tariff rate that are not avoided as a result of the solar installation. For example, the customer charge and the major portion of the demand charges are not avoided through the purchase of solar energy generated by the System. 2. The components of grid-sourced power supply costs that are only partially avoided by a solar installation; for example, peak capacity and transmission obligations. 12

14 3. The most recent energy market fundamentals (i.e., New York Mercantile Exchange ( NYMEX ) futures, Energy Information Administration ( EIA ) long term escalation rates, and environmental and Renewable Portfolio Standard ( RPS ) programs such as the SREC program) are incorporated to provide the best indication of future energy market prices. 4. The expiration date of the current third party supplier ACES contract and future third party supply rate trends. Third party supply rates after the expiration of the ACES contract were calculated as a discount from BGS rates to conservatively estimate the potential savings from a third party supplier contract (as compared to BGS). The third party supply rate discount in our analysis reflects an expectation of a diminishing disparity between the two rates over time. 5. The impact of future energy costs as a result of national, state, and regional environmental initiatives. 6. The impact that general energy market escalations will have upon long-term energy prices. All System designs were limited to no more than 80% displacement of the historic energy usage associated with each utility account, as per guidelines provided in the RFP. All Proposal Options were evaluated based on the Net Present Value ( NPV ) of benefits, which is a widely adopted methodology that recognizes the time value of money and the opportunity cost of capital, to the BOE. To calculate the NPV benefits provided by each proposal, Gabel Associates utilized the amount of electricity each Respondent s proposed System would generate (i.e., based on the guaranteed solar production during the term of the PPA) multiplied by the per-kwhr savings (difference between the solar PPA rate and the average cost of grid-sourced power avoided by on-site solar generation otherwise referred to as the solar price-to-compare ). All savings in future years are discounted back to present value using a 5% discount rate, consistent with standard accounting practices for NPV calculations. Note that NPV is a function not just of the first year PPA rate and the annual escalator, but also of the size of the System and the fraction of the utility purchase displaced by solar generation (taking into account the solar production guarantee in each proposal). Gabel Associates economic evaluation, based on the sources and factors listed above, utilized current utility tariff prices and current energy market conditions and applied assumed annual escalation rates for different portions of the distribution tariff and grid-sourced power supply (third party supply) components, in order to compare each of the PPA pricing proposals to electricity costs under a non-solar electricity price scenario. All proposals were benchmarked against the same non-solar electricity price scenario. In preparation of the forecast of the future prices for grid-sourced electricity, the annual escalation rates applied to the various cost components range conservatively from a low of 0.0% (flat) to as high as 3.0%. The economic evaluation considered first-year and annual nominal (non-discounted) savings, as well as NPV savings over the full 15-year term. Please see Attachment 3 for a summary of the economic analysis results. 13

15 The Evaluation Matrix contains 51 points for Financial Benefits, which are awarded proportionally based on 15-year NPV. The proposal with the highest NPV is awarded the full 51 points for economic merit, and the remaining projects within the group are awarded points in proportion to their savings NPV relative to the best proposal in the group. Within the group of Option 1 proposals received, ASP had the highest NPV and was awarded the full points. SunVest had the second best NPV with points, followed by Onyx with points, HESP with points, Dobtol with points, Ferreira with points, GE/RAI with points, and Ameresco with points. For Option 2, ASP had the highest NPV and was awarded the full points, followed by SunVest with points, Onyx with points, HESP with points, Dobtol with points, and GE/RAI with points. Within the Option 3 proposals, SunVest had the highest NPV and received the full points. ASP had the second highest NPV and received points, followed by Onyx with points, HESP with points, Dobtol with points, GE/RAI with points, and Ameresco with negative 6.06 points due to negative savings resulting from their proposal. SunVest and Onyx also submitted alternative proposals. SunVest s alternative proposal received the full points, with Onyx s alternative proposal receiving points. Again, points for financial benefit are assigned exclusively based on relative NPV ranking by proportion. 14

16 5. Evaluation: Technical Design & Approach The evaluation of the technical design/approach includes important criteria including: Design Strategy O&M Plan and Approach These two areas will be discussed, reviewed, and rated for each of the Respondents proposals. a) Design Strategy The design strategy in each of the proposals was evaluated based on reviewing the preliminary System layout, sizing and production, as well as the major System components. The following section provides an explanation of the review of the solar system layout, sizing, and production. This section includes a table for each Respondent along with an overview of the System components that were utilized in each Respondent s preliminary solar design and each component s compliance with the technical specifications in the RFP contained in Appendix B and C. ASP/Spano: The Evaluation Team compared the total system size for Option 1 of 2, kw DC, Option 2 of 2, kw DC, and Option 3 of 3, kw DC of ASP/Spano s proposed system with the conceptual site plan layout that was provided as part of the RFP. The system designs proposed by ASP/Spano were not consistent with the conceptual layouts provided in the RFP. ASP/Spano has included areas and roofs in their layouts that were not within the boundaries identified on the conceptual layouts included in the RFP. This discrepancy was present on six (6) school layouts. There is no concern of whether the expanded areas included in the system designs would be capable of supporting solar, so while this is not a fatal flaw to the proposal, it was taken into consideration when ranking the Respondents in this category. The proper course of action would have been to propose to include these areas as part of an alternative proposal option. Compared to the other Respondents, ASP/Spano s expanded design was the most egregious. The ASP/Spano s proposed Option 1 total system has a guaranteed output of 2,665,242 kwh, Option 2 total system has a guaranteed output of 3,009,524 kwh, and Option 3 total system has a guaranteed output of 3,661,202 kwh, which in all proposed options represents 90% of the expected total system output. ASP/Spano used PVsyst for their production estimates. Below is a summary of the estimated production in their proposal. 15

17 Proposal Option Total System Size: (kw DC) Expected Total System Output: (kwh) Guaranteed Total System Output: (kwh) Option 1 2, ,961,380 2,665,242 Option 2 2, ,343,916 3,009,524 Option 3 3, ,068,002 3,661,202 ASP/Spano s proposed equipment from the proposal and compliance to specifications are as follows: ASP/Spano: Major System Components System Component Manufacturer Compliance with Project Technical Specifications PV Modules LONGi Solar LR W Yes Inverters Roof: Solar Edge 20KUS and 33.3KUS - String Inverters Canopy: Sungrow 36KU-M and 60KU-M String Inverters Yes Flat Roof: PanelClaw Polar Bear III Racking Tilted Roof: Iron Ridge Mounting System System Canopies: Structural Solar LLC Single Cantilever Carport Model Yes DAS Deck Monitoring Yes ASP/Spano confirmed the use of Tier 1 materials, either those listed above or equivalent. ASP/Spano provided equipment selection in compliance with the RFP. While there is no concern of whether the expanded areas included in the system designs would be capable of supporting solar, ASP/Spano did not comply with the defined project area requirements of the RFP. The ASP/Spano team was awarded the six (6) out of a possible nine (9) points for this category. Ameresco: The Evaluation Team compared the total system size for Option 1 of 1, kw DC, and a total system for Option 3 of 2, kw DC of Ameresco s proposed system with the conceptual site plan layout that was provided as part of the RFP.. The system designs proposed by Ameresco was not consistent with the conceptual layouts provided in the RFP. Ameresco has included areas and roofs in their system design layouts that were not within the boundaries identified on the conceptual layouts included in the RFP. This discrepancy was present on two (2) school layouts. There is no concern of whether the expanded areas included in the system designs would be capable of supporting solar, so while this is not a fatal flaw to the proposal, it was taken into consideration when ranking the Respondents in this category. The proper course of action would have been to propose to include these areas as part of an alternative proposal option. 16

18 The Ameresco s proposed Option 1 total system has a guaranteed output of 1,950,695 kwh, and Option 3 total system has a guaranteed output of 2,914,255 kwh, which in all proposed options represents 90% of the expected total system output. Ameresco used PVWatts for their production estimates, and below is a summary of the estimated production in their proposal. Proposal Option Total System Size: (kw DC) Expected Total System Output: (kwh) Guaranteed Total System Output: (kwh) Option 1 1, ,167,442 1,950,695 Option 3 2, ,238,064 2,914,255 Ameresco s proposed equipment from the proposal and compliance to specifications are as follows: Ameresco: Major System Components System Component Manufacturer Compliance with Project Technical Specifications PV Modules LG Electronics - LG NeON W Yes Inverters Solectria String Inverters Yes Racking Flat Roof: PanelClaw Polar Bear III System Canopies: Solaire Carports System Yes DAS Draker Yes Ameresco confirmed the use of Tier 1 materials, either those listed above or equivalent. Ameresco provided equipment selection in compliance with the RFP. While there is no concern of whether the expanded areas included in the system designs would be capable of supporting solar, Ameresco did not comply with the defined project area requirements of the RFP. The Ameresco team was awarded the eight (8) out of a possible nine (9) points for this category. Dobtol/Altus: The Evaluation Team compared the total system size for Option 1 of 2, kW DC, Option 2 of 2, kw DC, and Option 3 of 3, kw DC of Dobtol/Altus proposed system with the conceptual site plan layout that was provided as part of the RFP. The system designs proposed by Dobtol/Altus were not consistent with the conceptual layouts provided in the RFP. Dobtol/Altus has included areas and roofs on their system design layouts that were not within the boundaries identified on the conceptual layouts included in the RFP. This discrepancy was present on three (3) school layouts. There is no concern of whether the expanded areas included in the system designs would be capable of supporting solar, so while this is not a fatal flaw to the proposal, it was taken into consideration when ranking the Respondents in this category. The proper course of action would have been to propose to include these areas as part of an alternative proposal option. 17

19 The Dobtol/Altus proposed Option 1 total system has a guaranteed output of 2,366,028 kwh, Option 2 total system has a guaranteed output of 2,626,698 kwh, and Option 3 total system has a guaranteed output of 3,289,056 kwh, which in all proposed options represents 90% of the expected total system output. Dobtol/Altus used PVsyst for their production estimates. Below is a summary of the estimated production in their proposal. Proposal Option Total System Size: (kw DC) Expected Total System Output: (kwh) Guaranteed Total System Output: (kwh) Option 1 2, ,628,919 2,366,028 Option 2 2, ,918,553 2,626,698 Option 3 3, ,654,507 3,289,056 Dobtol/Altus proposed equipment from the proposal and compliance to specifications are as follows: Dobtol/Altus: Major System Components System Component Manufacturer Compliance with Project Technical Specifications PV Modules Trina TSM-DD14A 340W Yes Inverters SMA Sunny Tripower Yes Racking System Genmounts Yes DAS AlsoEnergy Yes Dobtol/Altus confirmed the use of Tier 1 materials, either those listed above or equivalent. Dobtol/Altus provided equipment selection in compliance with the RFP. While there is no concern of whether the expanded areas included in the system designs would be capable of supporting solar, Dobtol/Altus did not comply with the defined project area requirements of the RFP. The Dobtol/Altus team was awarded the eight (8) out of a possible nine (9) points for this category. Ferreria: The Evaluation Team compared a total system size for Option 1 of 2, kw DC of Ferreira s proposed system with the conceptual site plan layout that was provided as part of the RFP. The system designs proposed by Ferreria were not consistent with the conceptual layouts provided in the RFP. Ferreria has included areas and roofs on their system design layouts that were not within the boundaries identified on the conceptual layouts included in the RFP. This discrepancy was present on five (5) school layouts. There is no concern of whether the expanded areas included in the system designs would be capable of supporting solar, so while this is not a fatal flaw to the proposal, it was taken into consideration when ranking the Respondents in this category. The proper course of action would have been to propose to include these areas as part of an alternative proposal option. 18

20 The Ferreria s proposed Option 1 System has a guaranteed output of 3,019,023 kwh, which represents 90% of the expected total system output. Ferreria/Summit provided the PVsyst for their production estimate. Below is a summary of the estimated production in their proposal. Proposal Option Total System Size: (kw DC) Expected Total System Output: (kwh) Guaranteed Total System Output: (kwh) Option 1 2, ,354,470 3,019,023 Ferreria proposed equipment from the proposal and compliance to specifications are as follows: System Component Ferreria/Summit: Major System Components Manufacturer Compliance with Project Technical Specifications PV Modules S-Energy SN360M W Yes Inverters SMA Suny Tripower - String Inverters Yes Racking System SMS or KNB Yes DAS Locus Yes Ferreria s proposal confirms the use of Tier 1 materials, either those listed above or equivalent. Ferreria provided equipment selection in compliance with the RFP. While there is no concern of whether the expanded areas included in the system designs would be capable of supporting solar, Ferreria did not comply with the defined project area requirements of the RFP. The Ferreria team was awarded the seven (7) out of a possible nine (9) points for this category. GE/RAI: The Evaluation Team compared the total system size for Option 1 of 2, kw DC, Option 2 of 2, , and Option 3 of 2, of GE/RAI s proposed system with the conceptual site plan layout that was provided as part of the RFP. The system designs proposed by GE/RAI was not consistent with the conceptual layouts provided in the RFP. GE/RAI has included areas and roofs on their system design layouts that were not within the boundaries identified on the conceptual layouts included in the RFP. This discrepancy was present on three (3) school layouts, one of which was substantial. There is no concern of whether the expanded areas included in the system designs would be capable of supporting solar, so while this is not a fatal flaw to the proposal, it was taken into consideration when ranking the Respondents in this category. The proper course of action would have been to propose to include these areas as part of an alternative proposal option. 19

21 The GE/RAI s proposed Option 1 System has a guaranteed output of 2,195,762 kwh, Option 2 System has a guaranteed output of 2,486,774 kwh, and Option 3 System has a guaranteed output of 2,868,342 kwh, which in all proposed options represents 90% of the expected total system output. GE/RAI used PVsyst for their production estimates. Below is a summary of the estimated production in their proposal. Proposal Option Total System Size: (kw DC) Expected Total System Output: (kwh) Guaranteed Total System Output: (kwh) Option 1 2, ,439,736 2,195,762 Option 2 2, ,763,082 2,486,774 Option 3 2, ,187,047 2,868,342 GE/RAI s proposed equipment from the proposal and compliance to specifications are as follows: GE/RAI: Major System Components System Component Manufacturer Compliance with Project Technical Specifications PV Modules LONGi Solar LR W Yes Inverters Chint String Inverters HiQ TS480-8k String Inverters Yes Racking System Flat Roof: Sollega FastRack 510 Pitched Roof: DPW Solar Canpoy: Yes Inverters: Bentek Solar DAS DECK Monitoring Yes GE/RAI confirmed the use of Tier 1 materials, either those listed above or equivalent. GE/RAI provided equipment selection in compliance with the RFP. While there is no concern of whether the expanded areas included in the system designs would be capable of supporting solar, GE/RAI did not comply with the defined project area requirements of the RFP. The GE/RAI team was awarded the seven (7) out of a possible nine (9) points for this category. HESP Solar: The Evaluation Team compared the total system size for Option 1 of 1, kw DC, Option 2 of 2, , and Option 3 of 3, of HESP Solar s proposed system with the conceptual site plan layout that was provided as part of the RFP. The layout proposed by HESP Solar was consistent with the layout provided in the RFP. 20

22 The HESP s proposed Option 1 System has a guaranteed output of 1,448,763 kwh, Option 2 System has a guaranteed output of 2,666,163 kwh, and Option 3 System has a guaranteed output of 3,276,713 kwh, which in all proposed options represents 90% of the expected total system output. HESP Solar provided the PVWatts calculations for the Systems substantiating the production calculations. Below is a summary of the estimated production in their proposal. Proposal Option Total System Size (kw DC) Expected Total System Output (kwh) Guaranteed Total System Output (kwh) Option 1 1, ,609,737 1,448,763 Option 2 2, ,962,404 2,666,163 Option 3 3, ,640,793 3,276,713 HESP Solar's proposed equipment from the proposal and compliance to specifications are as follows: System Component HESP Solar: Major System Components Manufacturer Compliance with Project Technical Specifications PV Modules Hanwha QCells L-G W 335W Yes Inverters Yaskawa-Solectria PVI String Inverters Yes Racking System Patriot Solar Group for Roof and Carport Canopy Yes DAS Locus Energy Yes HESP Solar s proposal confirms the use of Tier 1 materials, either those listed above or equivalent. HESP Solar provided design strategies and equipment selection in compliance with the RFP and as such HESP Solar was awarded nine (9) out of nine (9) points, the maximum amount of points for this category. Onyx: The Evaluation Team compared the total system size for Option 1 of 1, kw DC, Option 2 of 2, kw DC, Option 3 of 3, kw DC, and Alternative Option of 3, kw DC of Onyx s proposed system with the conceptual site plan layout that was provided as part of the RFP. The system designs for Options 1, 2, & 3 proposed by Onyx was not consistent with the conceptual layouts provided in the RFP. Onyx has included areas and roofs on their system design layouts that were not within the boundaries identified on the conceptual layouts included in the RFP. This discrepancy was present on one (1) school layout. There is no concern of whether the expanded areas included in the system designs would be capable of supporting solar, 21

23 so while this is not a fatal flaw to the proposal, it was taken into consideration when ranking the Respondents in this category. The proper course of action would have been to propose to include these areas as part of an alternative proposal option. The Onyx s proposed Option 1 System has a guaranteed output of 1,740,582 kwh, Option 2 System has a guaranteed output of 3,149,401 kwh, Option 3 System has a guaranteed output of 3,616,529 kwh, and the Alternative Option System has a guaranteed output of 4,035,340 kwh, which in all proposed options represents 90% of the expected total system output. Onyx provided the PVWatts calculations for the Systems substantiating the production calculations. Below is a summary of the estimated production in their proposal. Proposal Option Total System Size (kw DC) Expected Total System Output (kwh) Guaranteed Total System Output (kwh) Option 1 1, ,933,980 1,740,582 Option 2 2, ,499,335 3,149,401 Option 3 3, ,018,367 3,616,529 Alt. Option 3, ,483,712 4,035,340 Onyx s proposed equipment from the proposal and compliance to specifications are as follows: System Component Onyx: Major System Components Manufacturer Compliance with Project Technical Specifications PV Modules Yingli TSM-DD14 325W Yes Inverters Chint String Inverters Yes Racking System RBI Yes DAS NorCal Yes Onyx s proposal confirms the use of Tier 1 materials, either those listed above or equivalent. Onyx provided equipment selection in compliance with the RFP. While there is no concern of whether the expanded areas included in the system designs would be capable of supporting solar, Onyx did not comply with the defined project area requirements of the RFP. The Onyx team was awarded eight (8) out of a possible nine (9) points for this category. SunVest: The Evaluation Team compared the total system size for Option 1 of 2, kw DC, Option 2 of 2, kw DC, Option 3 of 3, kW DC, and Alternative Option of 2, kw DC of SunVest s proposed system with the conceptual site plan layout that was provided as part 22

24 of the RFP. The layout proposed by SunVest was consistent with the layout provided in the RFP. The SunVest s proposed Option 1 System has a guaranteed output of 2,571,244 kwh, Option 2 System has a guaranteed output of 2,888,622 kwh, Option 3 System has a guaranteed output of 3,439,683 kwh, and the Alternative Option System has a guaranteed output of 3,225,133 kwh, which in all proposed options represents 90% of the expected total system output. SunVest provided HelioScope calculations for the System to substantiate the production calculations. Below is a summary of the estimated production in their proposal. Proposal Option Total System Size (kw DC) Expected Total System Output (kwh) Guaranteed Total System Output (kwh) Option 1 2, ,856,940 2,571,244 Option 2 2, ,209,582 2,888,622 Option 3 3, ,821,871 3,439,683 Alt. Option 2, ,583,482 3,225,133 SunVest s proposed equipment from the proposal and compliance to specifications are as follows: SunVest: Major System Components System Component Manufacturer Compliance with Project Technical Specifications PV Modules Trina TSM-DD14 345W Yes Inverters Roof: Solar Edge String Inverters Yes Racking System RBI and Equilibrium Yes DAS Deck Monitoring & Solar Edge Yes SunVest s proposal confirms the use of Tier 1 materials, either those listed above or equivalent. SunVest provided design strategies and equipment selection in compliance with the RFP and as such SunVest was awarded nine (9) out of nine (9) points, the maximum amount of points for this category. b) Operations and Maintenance Plan and Approach ASP/Spano: ASP will provide operations and maintenance service for Spano. Maintenance response time for normal calls is within 24 hours and emergency maintenance response is within 4 hours of a call. Spano may consider other operations and maintenance providers, but will ensure similar 23

25 requirements and safety standards. ASP indicated that preventative maintenance site visits would occur once a year. In comparison to the other Respondents, this is the least amount of site visits offered. The ASP/Spano team was awarded the seven (7) out of a possible eight (8) points for this category. Ameresco: Ameresco s proposal indicates that they will be self-performing the operations and maintenance for this project. They will be using their real-time monitoring system to track key performance indicators and will respond quickly in the event of a component failure. Ameresco indicated that normal response times would be in the 24 to 48 hour range while the response time for emergency calls would be only a few hours. Ameresco anticipates two (2) annual service inspections. Ameresco was awarded eight (8) out of eight (8) points, the maximum number of points for this category. Dobtol/Altus: Dobtol/Altus indicated that QE Solar will be the operations and maintenance provider for this project. QE Solar is located in Cranford, New Jersey and provides solar operations and maintenance services to public and private entities with large and small solar projects in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Ohio Valley. Dobtol/Altus indicated that normal response times would be in the 24 to 48 hour range while the response time for emergency calls would be 2 to 4 hours. Dobtol/Altus anticipates a minimum of two (2) service inspections per year. This approach is consistent with market standards and includes multiple annual O&M site visits through the term. Dobtol/Altus was awarded eight (8) out of eight (8) points, the maximum number of points for this category. Ferreira: Vanguard Energy Partners ( VEP ) will be the operations and maintenance provider for this project. VEP is based out of and would be servicing the systems from Branchburg, New Jersey offices. VEP anticipates a minimum of two (2) service inspections per year to perform preventative maintenance and a 24 hour response time in the case of an emergency. Ferreira/Summit was awarded eight (8) out of eight (8) points, the maximum number of points for this category. GE/RAI: GE/RAI s proposal indicates that RAI will be performing the operations and maintenance for this project. They will be using their real-time monitoring system to track key performance indicators and will respond quickly in the event of a component failure. RAI indicated that normal response times would be in the 24 to 48 hour range while the response time for emergency calls would be only a few hours. RAI anticipates two (2) annual service inspections. GE/RAI was awarded eight (8) out of eight (8) points, the maximum number of points for this category. 24