Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Public Works

TO:	Dave Corliss
FROM:	Mark Thiel
CC:	Cynthia Wagner, Chuck Soules, Steve Bennett, Diane Stoddard
Date:	4/20/2010
RE:	City of Lawrence Public Library HVAC Improvements; PW-0930.
	Follow up memo on recommendation to award project to P1 Group.

We would like to provide the following additional information in support of our recommendation to award this project to P1 Group.

Evaluation Team

          Mark Thiel, Steve Bennett, Stan Alldredge, Dale Seele, Bruce Flanders

Proposal evaluation criteria

1. Ability to meet the energy tracking and  EECBG reporting requirements

2. Energy efficiency and value of equipment

3. Contractor proposal / design plan, installation, and customer service (warranty and follow up issues)

4. Proposal cost (project and future maintenance)

Evaluation comparison

	P1	JCI
Ability to meet the energy tracking and  EECBG reporting requirements	Experience with ARRA reporting. More aware of requirements. Dedicated staff person to track and report EECBG. Put more emphasis on meeting this requirement and its importance to the city.	Experience with ARRA reporting but not presented originally – The city had to ask for detail on how this would be handled. We felt there was potential for issues with ARRA reporting through JCI.

	P1	JCI
Energy efficiency and value of equipment	Equipment specified (AAON) exceeds the York equipment specified by JCI in construction, performance and energy efficiency. Pete Laughlin (mechanical engineer for both contractors) advised that AAON was superior to York.	York equipment would have to be upgraded (add on) items to be comparable to the AAON. Not as energy efficient as AAON.

	P1	JCI
Contractor proposal / design plan, installation customer service. (warranty and follow up issues)	P1 was prepared and made a complete presentation. They performed a mechanical evaluation of the facility prior to preparing their proposal, and recommended additional items that were not included with the original RFP. P1 has provided great follow through and customer care with prior projects.	JCI was not prepared for their presentation. The city had to make several follow up calls to get all the information needed to properly evaluate their proposal. They did not perform a complete evaluation of the facility. It appeared to the evaluation team that they were not that interested in the project.

	P1	JCI
Proposal cost (project and future maintenance)	P1’s proposal while higher in cost is more complete and it is anticipated that there is little chance for change orders or unrecognized cost. They put more effort into their evaluation and proposal. During their proposal they brought up items that we did not consider during our RFP draft that in the long term would cost the city additional money. The AAON equipment is more energy efficient which will result in long term energy cost reduction. P1 presented a much more complete package.	JCI’s proposal did not include some of the elements that P1 included; such as inclusive yearly maintenance contract at no cost – including all existing equipment. Based on JCI’s proposal we felt there was a probability of having change orders to get us to the same final product as proposed by P1. This is based on JCI’s presentation and lack of information provided at that time. We did not feel that JCI put forth the effort in detailing out this project, which we felt over time would result in increased project cost and additional life time expenses.

While both contractors were able to provide information that would be able to meet the EECBG criteria, P1 Group has a dedicated employee whose single purpose is to ensure compliance with EECBG reporting and tracking. We were more impressed with the level of interest and concern they provide in making sure we would be successful in meeting the EECBG goals.

We spent several hours researching both equipment proposals and had several meetings and phone conversations with each contractor. We talked in detail the Pete Laughlin, the mechanical engineer from Hoss and Brown that both contractors selected as their mechanical engineer for this project. In discussion with Pete, he told us that over all the AAON equipment specified by P1 Group would be the better choice. We also reviewed the data sheets for all equipment specified and determined that the P1 Group proposal was more complete and a stand alone installation without having to “add on” equipment. The AAON equipment also has a higher Integrated Part Load Value (IPLV) and Energy Efficiency Rating (EER) rating. Overall we felt that the equipment P1 Group proposed was the better choice.

P1 Group came prepared for their presentation. They brought the company owner, project manager and engineer and made a presentation explaining their outline of the project, time line and discussed each element of the proposal in detail of why their equipment and approach would be the best in meeting our project goals. Johnson Controls, Inc. was not prepared for their presentation. Their project manager came alone and began his presentation with “what questions do you have for me”. We had to ask for the information we were looking for. It took several follow up phone calls to get complete information to enable us to be able to completely evaluation their proposal. We were very impressed with P1 Group’s approach – they took the time prior to the presentation to work with their engineer and staff to do a facility evaluation to determine the best solution to meet our goals. They included several elements in their proposal that we had not requested, but that they felt were important and necessary for a successful project. They were committed to providing follow up service and included a complete one year service agreement that would cover not only the newly installed equipment but all existing equipment at no additional cost to the city. It is anticipated that with JCI there would be additional cost to the project with change orders, need for additional equipment, and follow up service cost.

Cost was only one element we discussed during the evaluation. We recognized that P1’s proposal was a higher dollar amount but felt that over the life of the equipment and the additional energy efficiency that this additional upfront cost would be recognized in future savings, design changes, change orders, service calls and energy cost reductions.

In summary, given all the evaluation criteria P1 scored higher than JCI. They were more prepared and put greater effort into meeting our project needs. We gave both contractors a through review and still believe our original recommendation to award to P1 Group will provide the best value to the city.