CN-370000-CN300-T2.pdf

For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!

http://www.adobe.com/go/reader

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

TASK ASSIGNMENT NOTIFICATION FORM

Required Signatures: Adobe Signature

FDEP Contract No.: Task Assignment No.: Owner’s Name: Project No.:

Project Location: Project Name:

Consultant Name:

Consultant Representative: Phone: Email:

FDEP Contract Manager: Phone: Email:

Description of Task:

Project Manager:

Schedule Start Date: Fixed Price Cost:

Completion Date: Cost Reimbursement not to exceed:

Total Task Amount:

Approval Signatures:

Budget Representative, FDEP Signature Date

Project Manager, FDEP Signature Date

Contract Manager, FDEP Signature Date

Consultant Signature Date

Contract Authority, FDEP Signature Date

Project # Grant # Org Code Cat/Year Fund Module Object Code EO Amount

29 digit FLAIR Code: Total:

FDEP Contract No: CN300

Task Assignment No: 02

Owners Name: FDEP

Project No:

Project Location: C.H. Corn Hydroelectric Generating Station

Project Name: Competitive Bid Solicitation Preparation

Consultant Name: Bergmann Associates

Consultant Representative: Donald P. Nims

Phone:

Email: dnim@BERGMANNPC.com

FDEP Contract Manager: Philip Stone

Phone_2: 850-245-2570

Email_2: philip.stone@dep.state.fl.us

Description of Task: Preparation of competitive bid solicitation and other considerations to transfer operations of the C. H. Corn Hydroelectric Generating Station from the City of Tallahassee to a new Operator, see attached proposal dated 11/18/16 for further details.

Project Manager: Philip Stone or successor

Start Date: Upon Execution

Fixed Price Cost: 70206

Completion Date: 12/31/2017

Cost Reimbursement not to exceed: 12207.80

Total Task Amount: 82413.8

Budget Representative FDEP: Teresa T. Johnson

2016-11-18T15:50:13-0500

Johnson_TT

Date: 11/18/16

Project Manager FDEP: Philip T. Stone

2017-01-23T14:56:49-0500

Philip T. Stone

Date_2: 1/23/2017

Contract Manager FDEP: Mae Roth

2017-01-24T09:10:49-0500

Mae Roth

Date_3: 1/27/2017

Consultant: Michael Stuebben

2017-01-24T11:21:01-0500

Michael G. Stuebben

Date_4: 1/24/2017

Contract Authority FDEP: David Clark

2017-01-24T22:01:41-0500

David Clark

Date_5: 1/24/2017

Project Row1:

Grant Row1:

Org CodeRow1: 3710-1000-000

CatYearRow1: 101496/00

FundRow1: 423001

ModuleRow1:

Object CodeRow1: 139900

EORow1: QM

AmountRow1: 82413.80

Project Row2:

Grant Row2:

Org CodeRow2:

CatYearRow2:

FundRow2:

ModuleRow2:

Object CodeRow2:

EORow2:

AmountRow2:

Project Row3:

Grant Row3:

CatYearRow3:

FundRow3:

ModuleRow3:

Object CodeRow3:

EORow3:

AmountRow3:

Total: 82413.80

Org CodeRow3:

29 digit code:

November 18, 2016

Mr. Philip Stone Pre-Construction Section Leader Bureau of Design and Construction Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3800 Commonwealth Blvd 260M, MS 520 Tallahassee, FL 32399

RE: (FDEP CN300-TA02)

(FEE PROPOSAL C.H. CORN HYDROELECTRIC GENERATING STATION COMPETITIVE BID

SOLICITATION PREPARATION)

Dear Mr. Stone, Bergmann Associates is pleased to submit this proposal to Florida Department of Environmental Protection to provide services needed to transfer operations of the C.H. Corn Hydroelectric Generating Station (the “Facility”) from the City of Tallahassee (the “City”) to a new Operator.

We understand the State of Florida owns the Facility and leases it to the City of Tallahassee to operate it as an 11 MW hydroelectric generating power plant. The Facility is operated in accordance with a license granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The license expires in 2022 and FERC must be informed by June 3, 2017 with a formal Notice of Intent to surrender or relicense or transfer the license. Initial discussions with FERC about the Notice of Intent process has to start six (6) to 12 months before June 3rd.

Since the City has decided that it does not want to relicense the Facility, the State of Florida is exploring the option to transfer the license to an independent Operator. The State of Florida would lease the Facility to the new Operator who would assume the same responsibilities for operating the Facility as the City. However, the terms and conditions of the current lease with the City as well as the current operating requirements may change as the lease with the new Operator is negotiated.

To seek proposals from prospective operators the State of Florida has requested Bergmann Associates prepare a competitive bid solicitation (COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION). To perform an assessment of the proposals an appraisal of the Facility will be provided by Bergmann Associates.

Noted Considerations:

Project Goal o Goal #1 Maintain a recreational link by controlling surface waters in a manner that minimizes the potential for floods.

o Goal #2 Divestment of a power producing asset that requires investment to remain a viable source of revenue with a meaningful ROI.

o Goal #3 Maintain a renewable energy producing resource.

FERC Compliance:

o Three divisions within FERC will have a role in the transfer of the FERC license for this hydropower plant; that is Licensing, Compliance, and Dam Safety.

o To complete a license transfer FERC does have a few requirements. They do not, however, have any requirements for due diligence or environmental assessment. The new Operator will secure the FERC license transfer and perform the environmental compliance required by FERC to transfer the license.

The State does not have any environmental compliance requirements for the lease transaction being contemplated.

The City can seek a separate agreement with the operator for the turbines and other equipment that the City owns.

MR Valuation Consulting, LLC (MRV Consulting) is the subconsultant proposed to perform the appraisal. Their qualifications are attached. MRV Consulting needs to be added to FDEP’s list of approved companies.

A Scope of Work, Schedule, Rate Schedule, and Fee are attached for your approval.

Respectfully, Donald P. Nims, Jr., P.E.

Project Manager Bergmann Associates

FDEP PROPOSAL

C.H. Corn Hydroelectric Generating Station Competitive Bid Solicitation Preparation

Contract Number, CN300-TA02

Subtask 1: Prepare Appraisal Description: In order for the State to perform an assessment of the proposals received from prospective Operators of the C.H. Corn Hydroelectric Generating Station (the “Facility) an assessment of the Facility will be provided by Bergmann Associates. An appraisal performed by a firm with experience in the valuation of hydroelectric power generating stations will provide FDEP with independent and professional opinion of the “market value” of the Facility.

Subtask 1a: Perform Facility Assessment (Bergmann Scope)

Description:

To complete the appraisal Bergmann will visit the Facility to perform a cursory assessment of the State owned equipment (i.e., hydromechanical, electromechanical, auxiliary mechanical systems, auxiliary electrical systems, civil features, protection, controls, and automation). The assessment will document the equipment, describe its condition, and determine lifecycle costs.

To comply with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requirements (Order 122, 18 CFR Part 12, subpart D, entitled "Safety of Water Power Projects and Project Works”) the City of Tallahassee (City) commissioned a Part 12D Safety Inspection performed by an independent consultant in 2015. Bergmann will review the Report for that inspection to determine capital improvement costs required.

Deliverable:

A Facility Assessment Report (2 bound copies of the Final Report and a PDF of the Draft and Final Reports)

Meeting Minutes (A PDF of all Meeting Minutes)

Performance Measure: Deliverables will be reviewed by the Department to confirm they are complete, accurate, and timely.

Subtask 1b: Perform Facility Appraisal (MRV Consulting Scope)

Description:

The purpose of this engagement will be to provide Bergmann Associates and its client, the FDEP with our independent and professional opinion of the “market value” of the Facility as of June 3, 2017 to satisfy management planning requirements.

For this particular analysis, the appropriate premise of value will be “market value”: “The most probable price, as of a specified date, in cash, or in terms equivalent to cash, or in other precisely revealed terms, for which the specified property rights should sell after reasonable exposure in a competitive market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and for self-interest, and assuming that neither is under undue duress.”1

The deliverables (“Deliverables”) of this engagement will provide FDEP with an appraisal report depicting the methodology, analyses, assumptions, conclusions, and supporting exhibits, compliant with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (“USPAP”). It is our understanding that the Deliverables will be used for the above stated purpose and use. The use of the Deliverables for any other purposes or use is not permitted.

Appraisal Methodology

Cost Approach Analysis

This approach is based upon the proposition that an informed purchaser would pay no more for an asset than the cost of producing a substitute asset with the same utility as the subject. It considers that the maximum value of an asset to a knowledgeable buyer would be the amount currently required to construct or purchase a new asset of equal utility. When the subject asset is not new, the current cost new for the subject must be adjusted for all forms of depreciation and obsolescence, as of the valuation date.

Reproduction Cost Analysis is a method within the cost approach that utilizes a trended original cost analysis to determine the value of the Facility. The analysis utilizes the original cost information maintained by the Facility, if available. MRV Consulting will independently review such cost information as to their accuracy and reliability, and make our own determination whether their use is reasonable and reliable for purposes of our analysis.

Reproduction cost (new) is the current cost of reproducing a new replica of an asset with the same or closely similar materials. MRV Consulting plans to utilize the Handy-Whitman trend indices and may consider other indices such as the Consumer Price Index, EPRI, Marshall & Swift, and other established electric utility trend indices in determining the cost approach values of the tangible assets. Before applying any index, MRV Consulting will assure themselves of its application, reasonableness, and reliability for determining the reproduction cost new of the Facility and its related assets.

Replacement Cost New is a method within the cost approach for estimating the value of hydroelectric facilities in a competitive market. For new and existing electric generating facilities, the replacement cost method is gaining acceptance and MRV Consulting anticipates that it may become a definitive method to consider for developing a primary value indicator.

MRV Consulting may utilize a replacement cost method utilizing a “cost per capacity” method to compute the overall replacement cost. The cost per unit method is useful in deriving a replacement cost by utilizing an estimated “dollars per unit of capacity,” expressed in $/kW. Total cost is estimated by multiplying unit cost by the number of units. The unit cost can be developed from a variety of sources including research publications, the government, contractor estimates, manufacturer estimates, owner estimates, and the comparative-unit method.

1 The Appraisal of Real Estate, 14th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2013), 58.

The cost per capacity method is relatively practical, and is considered and often utilized by many market participants. In the case of an electric generating station, the number of units is the capacity of the plant, typically quantified in megawatts. The unit cost can be developed from a variety of sources including research publications, the government, contractor estimates, manufacturer estimates, owner estimates, and the comparative-unit method. The US Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) publishes cost information regarding energy related capital projects, including but not limited to new electric generating plants. EIA updates its cost and performance assumptions annually. The estimates published by EIA will be one of the sources used in in our replacement cost analysis. The cost per capacity method is relatively practical, and is considered and often utilized by many market participants.

The apparent simplicity of the cost per capacity method can be misleading. To develop dependable unit cost values, an appraiser must exercise judgment and carefully compare the subject assets with similar or standard assets for which actual costs are available. Appropriate cost adjustments need to be made to account for differences between the various cost sources and the subject facility. Erroneous data can result if an appraiser concludes a “unit cost” that is not applicable to the subject assets. When it is correctly applied, the cost per capacity method produces reasonably accurate estimates of cost.

Upon completion of our reproduction cost (new) and/or replacement cost analyses, MRV Consulting will adjust the cost new values for depreciation utilizing a straight-line method and for certain obsolescence that is readily identifiable. Certain information regarding the intended future use of the assets may be requested by MRV Consulting (based on our independent analysis) from you to assist us in determining the appropriate methodology of value to employ in determining the fair value.

Sales Comparison Approach

The second approach to value the Facility that MRV Consulting will consider is the sales comparison approach. This approach involves the comparison of recent sales (or offerings) of similar assets to the subject asset. If the comparable sales are not exactly like the subject, adjustments must be made to the price of the comparable sales (or offerings). The adjustments may be either positive or negative to estimate what a comparable sale would have sold for if it had the same characteristics as the subject asset. This approach leads to an indication of the most probable selling price for the assets being appraised.

When comparing, and valuing hydroelectric generating facilities, one typically considers the overall acquisition price per production or capacity unit (i.e. price per kilowatt). The first step in utilizing this method of the sales comparison approach is to identify comparable sales of similar facilities. Sales transactions can then be examined for size, location, and technology. The price per kilowatt of capacity multiplied by the capacity of the subject Facility will yield an estimated sales comparison approach value of the Facility. This approach can indicate a significant range of values, which still may be useful in determining the fair value of the subject. However, if it proves to be inappropriate or unsound as an independent appraisal approach, MRV Consulting will attempt to utilize it as a cross checking technique and/or a “range of values” indicator.

Income Approach

The third approach MRV Conosulting will consider to value the Facility is the income approach. The underlying principle in this approach is that buyers invest in hydroelectric facilities comparable to the subject with the expectation of receiving the anticipated future income. MRV Consulting will attempt to replicate the analysis buyers and sellers apply to the expected cash flows and their inherent risks by using the discounted cash flow (“DCF”) method of the income approach. The DCF method will estimate the fair value of the Facility by considering the prospective operational results and financing associated with the assets.

MRV Consulting will perform a pro forma analysis of the operations of the Facility to estimate available cash flow. This is done by projecting revenues, operating expenses, capital expenditures, financing costs, taxes, and other items that taken together determine future cash flows. MRV Consulting will then discount the annual available cash flows at a rate that provides a satisfactory return on invested capital given the risk scenario. MRV consulting will adjust for the tax effects and then sum the present value of the future cash flows to estimate the market value of the Facility.

MRV Consulting may also attempt to evaluate the Facility using direct capitalization techniques. This method utilizes revenue and expenses for a single year and converts them directly into an indication of value. These techniques are useful because they are easily constructed and understood. However, if this method proves to be inappropriate or unsound as an appraisal method, they will attempt to utilize it as a cross-checking technique and/or a “range of values” indicator.

Site Visit

A site inspection of the Facility will be conducted to gain an understanding of the processes, major assets, and condition. Interviews will be conducted with certain engineering, maintenance, and accounting personnel at the Facility to assist in the understanding of the existing fixed asset information.

MRV Consulting will attempt to collect any pertinent data that is available and compile the most complete fixed asset register from this information.

Reconciliation of Value

As in any appraisal, the appraiser must consider the three traditional approaches to value and must rely on the approaches that are appropriate for that property, market, and time. Until MRV Consulting fully investigates available data regarding the Facility, the subject market, and any comparable sale data available, they cannot determine which approaches can be completed appropriately and relied upon for the purposes of this engagement. Based on the three approaches to value, reconciliation to a conclusion of value would be determined considering the relative strengths and weaknesses of each approach to value. In this phase, the various value indications are reconciled into a final value opinion which may be either a final range of value or a single point estimate.

A Facility Appraisal Report (2 bound copies of the Final Report and a PDF of the Draft and Final Reports)

Assumptions for Subtasks 1a & 1b:

The City is responsible for an assessment of the value of their equipment and will provide proposed terms and conditions for the COMPETITVE BID SOLICITATION.

The assessment and appraisal will not include the equipment owned by the City of Tallahassee (City), which includes: three turbines, switchgear, control system, step-up transformers, flood gate hoists, 100 kW generator, and a 500-gallon diesel tank.

Bergmann can rely on the following material provided by the City or FDEP o Record Plans of the Dam and Power Plant o Operating History and Financial Records that include:

Historical construction cost information for the development of the Facility including cost detail from the historic Continuing Property Records (“CPR’s”)

Capital expenditures and construction cost information for any major additions and/or retirements since the development of the Facility

Facility Production – net and gross generating capacity by month, for the last five years

Historical and projected revenue by revenue source for the Facility Historical and projected expense elements for the Facility Future capital expenditures by year to support the FERC relicense procedure o Bergmann Associates can rely upon the Part 12D Inspection Report to assess the dam’s condition o Proposed Power Purchase Agreement o Proposed Operating Requirements o Proposed Operating and Maintenance Leases

Fixed Price Cost:

Subtask 1a Firm Name Position Classification Hourly Rate Hours Total Fixed

Price Cost

Contract / Project Manager $182.00 4 $728.00 Sr. Engineer (PE) $151.00 52 $7,852.00 Project Engineer (PE) $137.00 36 $4,932.00 Total $13,512.00

Reimbursable Cost:

Subtask 1a Postage $125 Printing 8 ½ x 11 : 5 x 30 pages x $.05 = $7.50 Overnight Travel (if applicable)

$570.00 Roundtrip Airfare from Buffalo, NY $600.00 Roundtrip Airfare from Syracuse, NY $210.00 Rental Car to site $60.00 Parking (3 days @ $10.00/day for 2) $180.00 Food for 2 people (2.5 days @ $36.00/day) $470.00 Hotel for 2 people 2 nights 2,090.00 Subtotal

Mileage (@ $0.445 per mile) $44.50 for 2 people to travel between home & airport (100 miles) Reimbursable Total Cost $2,267.00

Total for Subtask 1a: ($13,512.00 + $2,267.00) = $15,779.00

Subtask 1b

MRV Consulting Partner / Director $350.00 52 $18,200.00 Project Manager $233.00 38 $8,854.00 Senior Consultant $195.00 28 $5,460.00 Administrative $58.00 10 $580.00

Total $33,094.00

Subtask 1b Platts Data $5,700.00 Postage $125.00 Printing 8 ½ x 11 : 5 x 30 pages x $.05 = $7.50

$1,000.00 Roundtrip Airfare from Newark, NJ for 2 people $450.00 Rental Car to site $111.00 Parking (3 days @ $37.00/day for one) $180.00 UBER between home & airport (2 trips @ $90.00/trip for one) $288.00 Food for 2 people (4 days @ $36.00/day) $1,000 Hotel for 2 people 4 nights $20.00 Tolls between home & airport (2 trips @ $10.00/trip for one) 3,049.00 Subtotal

Mileage (@ $0.445 per mile) $44.50 for one person to travel between home & airport (100 miles) Reimbursable Total Cost $8,926.00

Total for Subtask 1b: ($33,094.00 + $8,926.00) = $42,020.00

Subtask 2: Prepare COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION Description: The State of Florida is exploring the option to transfer a FERC license for the C.H. Corn Hydropower Plant to an independent Operator. A request for proposal (COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION) will be prepared and publicly issued to seek proposals from prospective operators.

Bergmann Associates will develop a request for proposal (COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION) for FDEP to seek proposals from prospective Operators for the C.H. Corn Hydropower Plant. The COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION will include the following technical information and requirements:

o Background & Goals o Schedule o Performance Requirements o Description of Existing Facilities o O&M Requirements o Regulatory and Environmental Requirements o Agreement Terms and Conditions o Technical Proposal Format o Cost Proposal Format

Bergmann Associates will attend a conference call with FDEP and FERC to discuss FERC’s requirements for transferring a FERC license. Three divisions within FERC will have a role in the transfer of the FERC license for this hydropower plant; that is Licensing, Compliance, and Dam Safety.

Bergmann Associates will prepare the following figures for the COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION o Annotated Aerial

Assumptions o FDEP will meet with City officials, as needed. Bergmann has budgeted to attend two of these meetings by conference call.

o If needed, Bergmann will secure from FDEP a Non-Disclosure Agreement, draft Lease, Power Purchase Agreement and the Fuel Supply Agreement to be used as exhibits in the

COMPETITVE BID SOLICITATION.

o FDEP will advertise and issue the COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION.

o FDEP will prepare the agreement between the State and new operator. If asked, Bergmann will review the lease at an agreed upon price.

o The new Operator will complete the FERC requirements needed to transfer the license.

o The State does not have any environmental compliance requirements for the lease transaction being contemplated.

o The City can seek a separate agreement with the operator for the turbines and other equipment that the City owns.

A COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION (2 copies of the Final COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION and a PDF of the Draft and Final COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION)

Meeting Minutes (A PDF of all Meeting Minutes)

Subtask 2

Contract / Project Manager $182.00 8 $1,456.00 Principal / QA&QC Manager $228.00 16 $3,648.00 Sr. Engineer (PE) $151.00 8 $1,208.00 Secretary $74.00 16 $1,184.00 Total $7,496.00

Postage $125 for Bergmann Printing Bergmann – 8 ½ x 11 : 5 x 30 pages x $.05 = $7.50

$0.00

Mileage (@ $0.445 per mile) $0.00 Reimbursable Total Cost $132.50

Total for Subtask 2: ($7,496.00 + $132.50) = $7,628.50

Subtask 3: Manage the COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION Process Description: The tasks below are needed to manage the COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION process after the COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION is publicly advertised and issued.

Bergmann Associates will assist FDEP with responding to queries after issuance of the

COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION.

Bergmann Associates will attend the mandatory pre-bid meeting with prospective Operators.

The pre-bid meeting will be conducted at the Facility and will include a tour.

Assumptions o Bergmann Associates will budget 16 hours to conduct the pre-bid meeting.

o Bergmann Associates will budget 8 hours and MRV Consulting will budget 8 hours for answering technical questions submitted by email from prospective Operators as they prepare their proposals. Answers will be provided to FDEP for inclusion in any Addendum to the COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION that will be issued by FDEP.

o Bergmann Associates will budget 16 hours and MRV Consulting will budget 16 hours to prepare the bid evaluation criteria and bid tabulation as well as analyze one of the proposals.

o The selection process will not include an interview of short-listed prospective operators, but the successful bidder will be required to submit supplemental information as requested by FDEP after the proposals have been submitted.

Meeting Minutes for the pre-bid meeting and other meetings (A PDF of all Meeting Minutes) Addendum with technical questions and responses (2 copies of the Final Addendum and a PDF of the Draft and Final Addendums) Summary of Proposals (2 copies of the Final Summary and a PDF of the Draft and Final

Summary)

Subtask 3

Contract / Project Manager $182.00 4 $728.00 Principal / QA&QC Manager $228.00 20 $4,560.00 Sr. Engineer (PE) $151.00 16 $2,416.00 MRV Consulting Partner / Director $350.00 24 $8,400.00

Total $16,104.00

Postage $50 Printing 8 ½ x 11 : 5 x 30 pages x $.05 = $7.50

$465.00 Roundtrip Airfare from Rochester, NY $135.00 Rental Car to site $72.00 Food (2 days @ $36.00/day) $20.00 Parking (2 days @ $10.00/day) $115.00 Hotel for 1 person 1 night $807.00 Subtotal

Mileage (@ $0.445 per mile) $17.80 travel between home & airport (40 miles) Reimbursable Total Cost $882.30

Total for Subtask 3: ($16,104.00 + $882.30) = $16,986.30

Project Schedule:

Activity Duration

(Calendar Days) Dates

Subtask 1: Prepare Appraisal 108 Days 10/26/16 – 2/10/17 Bergmann Prepares Draft Appraisal 80 Days 10/26/17 – 1/13/17

FDEP Reviews Draft Appraisal Estimated 22 Days 1/13/17 – 2/3/17

Bergmann Finalizes Appraisal 7 Days 2/3/17 – 2/10/17 Subtask 2: Prepare COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION 24 Days 10/26/16 – 11/18/16

Bergmann Submits Draft COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION to FDEP 10 Days 10/26/16 – 11/4/16

FDEP Reviews Draft COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION 7 Days 11/4/16 – 11/11/16

Bergmann Revises COMPETITIVE BID SOLICIATION 5 Days 11/12/16 – 11/17/16

FDEP Issues COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION 11/18/16 Subtask 3: Administer COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION 85 Days 11/18/16 – 2/10/17

Prospective Owners Prepare Proposals 85 Days 11/18/16 – 2/10/17 Pre-proposal meeting/walkthrough 1/13/17 FDEP Receives Proposals 2/10/17 FDEP Analyzes Proposals 30 Days 2/10/17 – 3/3/17 FDEP Announces Apparent New Lessor 3/3/17

Execute Lease 134 Days 3/3/17 – 7/14/17 FDEP Prepares Draft Lease 30 Days 2/10/17 – 3/3/17 New Operator Reviews Draft Lease 7 Days 3/3/17 – 3/10/17 FDEP Finalizes Lease 7 Days 3/10/17 – 3/17/17 Governor’s Cabinet Approval May 2017 FDEP Issues Notice of Intent to Transfer FERC License 6/3/17 (FERC deadline)

Public Comment Period 60 Days 6/3/17 – 7/7/17 Lease is Signed by All Parties 7/14/17

Summary of Fees:

Activity Subtask Fixed Price Cost Subtask Reimbursable Subtask 1a: Perform Facility Assessment $13,512.00 $2,267.00 Subtask 1b: Perform Facility Appraisal $33,094.00 8,926.00 Subtask 2: Prepare COMPETITVE BID SOLICITATION $7,496.00 $132.50 Subtask 3: Manage COMPETITIVE BID SOLICITATION Process $16,104.00 $882.30

Total Fixed Price Cost: $70,206.00 Total Reimbursable Cost: $12,207.80

Overall Total Cost: $82,413.80

Payment will be made upon approval of deliverables for each subtask by the FDEP in the amount specified.

Position Classification Hourly Rate Full Billing Rate Partner / Director $125.00 $350.00 Project Manager $83.21 $233.00 Senior Consultant $69.50 $195.00 Administrative $20.71 $58.00

Hourly Rate 100.00 General Overhead 90.00 Fringe Benefits 64.54 Subtotal 254.54 Profit (10%) 25.45

Total Multiplier 2.80

FDEP Solicitation No. RFSOQBDC06 - 14/15 Statewide Architectural or Engineering Services

November 16, 2016 MRV Consulting

FDEP CH Corn Proposal 111816

MRV Consulting Rates