The LED retrofit project supports two goals in the Town's 2025 Strategic Plan: Achieve universal environmental sustainability in public and private environments, operations and infrastructure; and, Achieve national recognition as a ‘Model Town' for creativity, education, innovation and use of technology.
On May 27, 2016 the Town of Miami Lakes (“Town”) issued an RFP for an LED Street Light Conversion Program to procure LED lights and qualified contractor(s) to implement the
conversion of approximately 915 Town-owned High Pressure Sodium (HPS) cobra head streetlights to Light Emitting Diode (LED) lights to include a centrally controlled monitoring system. The Town was also interested in program financing options wherein the reduction in energy and maintenance costs would offset the cost of the financing for the purchase and installation of the LED lights and the monitoring system.
Minimum Qualification Requirements were as follows per the RFP:
•Proposals will only be considered from firms that have been continuously engaged in similar work and firm must have completed a minimum of three (3) projects within the last seven (7) years of a similar size, scope and complexity as the project specified herein verifiable through client references.
•Proposer must possess or obtain the services of a firm with a current valid State of Florida Electrical Contractor license and provide such documentation in proposal package.
•Proposer must include in proposal price a minimum five (5) year warranty on LED luminaires from the date of Town's final project acceptance. Proposal package must include a certification or affidavit confirming the availability a full-coverage five (5) year warranty on each LED luminaire model proposed.
•Proposer must provide a letter from a Surety Company confirming their ability to obtain a Performance & Payment Bond in the amount of the Total Price Proposal.
A requirement regarding the light being approved by FPL was removed via the addendum process, once the Town received further clarification from FPL that the reduction in energy cost is granted on any manufacturer's light based on the wattage listed on the specifications and does not require FPL approval.
In addition, during the solicitation process, there was recent research published regarding the recommended color temperature for streetlights. Most proposers had several color temperatures available for their luminaires and would be able to accommodate the Town's desire of using a color temperature of 3000K. The evaluation committee agreed that while this was an important criterion, it was not going to be considered as part of the evaluation (as it was not required in the solicitation) but that once the proposers were ranked, this would be discussed as part of the negotiation process.
Procurement notified more than 1,750 potential respondents of the RFP via DemandStar and emailed solicitation opportunity notices. A non-mandatory pre-proposal conference was held on June 7, 2016. Seven (7) responses were received by the July 13, 2016 deadline. Two (2) responses were deemed non-responsive and were not submitted to the Evaluation Committee for review. Procurement verified the business registration status of the companies and received financial stability remarks from the Town's Finance Director, Ismael Diaz, MBA for the five (5) responsive firms.
An Evaluation Committee (“Committee”) comprised of the following individuals met on August 3, 2016 to evaluate the submittals and establish the ranking of the firms:
1.Carmen Olazabal, PE, LEED AP, 4City Consulting, Project Manager
2.Andrea Agha, MBA, Assistant Town Manager (Committee Chair)
3.Elia Nuñez, PE, Public Works Director
4.Alejandro Gari, Electrical Engineer, ADA Engineering
The RFP responses were evaluated based on the criteria set forth in the solicitation:
1.Qualifications, Experience and Project History – 20 Points
2.Program Approach and Work Plan – 15 Points
3.Resources, Availability and Warranty – 20 Points
4.Client References – 5 Points
5.Price – 40 Points
= 100 Possible Points
The Committee ranked the responses as follows:
FirmTotal PointsRanking
Tanko Street Lighting, Inc. “Tanko”376 Points1
FPL Energy Services, Inc. “FPL Energy”310 Points2
Horsepower Electric, Inc. “Horsepower”291 Points3
Itelecom USA, Inc. “Itelecom” 226 Points4
AGC Electric, Inc. “AGC” 194 Points5
The Committee discussed the pros and cons of the above proposals as described below. The Committee also the factory-provided samples of lighting housing and fixtures.
AGC: This firm's project listing exhibited similar install projects; however they did not utilize the appropriate Project Data Form in their response which is organized to highlight successes and issues on a project to provide a snapshot of overall project success. The Committee agreed it was difficult to evaluate project history without knowing whether the projects were on time or within budget. In addition, the Committee members stated that the response format was not adhered to, making it hard to follow due to the lack of information provided. Proposed fixtures included LeoTek and Acuity. The firm's financials appeared to be low to medium strength, A project financing option was not provided to cover their Proposal Price of $958,575.
FPL Energy: provided a strong package and easy to follow. They demonstrated considerable project experience and familiarity with the Florida energy and lighting landscape. The three projects highlighted in the proposal were extensive top-to-bottom energy conservation renovations. The project leads were management/business managers as opposed to electrical specialists. They cited a large renovation installation job that is not yet completed – the Miami International Airport project for Terminal Phase 3. The Committee appreciated FPL Energy's attention to the Town's project in identifying potential risks and issues with implementation to include their Six Sigma and quality control techniques. Proposed fixtures included Acuity and Philips. There were no issues of concern regarding the firm's financials. Project financing for their proposal of $716,428 was proposed via lender TCEF at 3.0% APR over a 154-month term with payments ranging between $41,189 to $77,604 per year.
Horsepower: A state-certified general contractor and electrical contractor. Their referenced projects were smaller lighting installations for local municipalities, with the exception of a Weston project converting 1,095 lights. The Committee stated that the response lacked specifics and did not address potential issues or necessary progression details. Proposed fixtures included Schreder and Smartlume. The firm's financials appeared to be medium strength. Project financing for their proposal of $752,050 was proposed via lender Graybar Financial Services at 3.5% APR over a 60-month term or approximately $165,000 per year.
Itelecom: Large turnkey installation lighting jobs performed for local governments in South America. None of their three cited projects were performed in North America. The Committee was unsure if there would be a learning curve with regard to jurisdictional procedure, regulatory standards or other technicalities. Given that the electrical groundwork in the Town's project is pre-existing, Mr. Gari commented that it likely would not be a problem. The Committee noted that it was unclear who the proposed project manager was due to the inconsistencies between the organizational chart and the resumes provided. For instance, there was no resume provided for the project manager for the three cited projects and it was unclear if he would manage the Town's project or if it would be someone else. Specifics regarding approach details for the Town's project were lacking. Proposed fixtures included HPWinner. In-house project financing for their proposal of $999,111 was proposed at 5.75% APR over a 60-month termor $173,352 per year after a$300,000 down payment required.
Tanko: A national lighting firm that highlighted similar turnkey lighting installation projects in California and Massachusetts.
The attention to detail in the project approach portion; which included specifics about coordination assistance with the lighting tariffs and other major milestone pieces of the project demonstrated their experience in performing similar jobs. Committee members agreed that Tanko's proposal package was the overall strongest and most thorough of the five proposals. Proposed fixtures included G.E. and Cree, which are FPL pre-approved fixtures. The firm's financials demonstrate that they are financially stable. Project financing for their proposal of $508,577 was proposed as a tax-exempt capital lease via lender TCF Equipment Finance at 2.65% APR over an eight-year term (16 payments in the amount of $35,590) or approximately $71,180 per year.
It is expected that the LED conversion program will reduce energy cost by approximately 65% or $26,000, maintenance cost by at least 45% or approximately $45,000 per year on the Town owned streetlights, and staff monitoring cost of $2,000 per year for a total savings of $73,000 per year. Based on the estimated reduction in energy and maintenance cost, the payback period for the LED retrofit conversion based on the top ranked firm's Proposal will be approximately 5.5 years excluding the monitoring system, and 7 years including the monitoring system.
It is recommended that the Town negotiate an agreement with the first ranked proposer, Tanko. Should negotiations with Tanko be unsuccessful, the process will be terminated and negotiations will ensue with the next highest ranked firm in the following order: FPL Energy Services, Inc. and then Horsepower Electric, Inc. The Town Manager is authorized to execute the contract for the purchase of the equipment and installation as long as the contract provides equal or better terms to the Town than the shortlisted RFP responses.
Staff shall assess project financing arrangements to determine the most advantageous option. If the Town Manager opts to secure financing with the selected providers or through a third party, an ordinance will be presented for the Town Council's approval at the appropriate time.