RFP 20_1868 Award Summary for DNR_Utility Scale Solar.docx

STATE OF MICHIGAN PROCUREMENT

Department of Natural Resources

525 West Allegan, Lansing, MI 48933

Award Recommendation Notice of Intent to Award Number 200000000684

The Department of Natural Resources has completed the evaluation of RFP 200000001878 for Utility Scale Solar and has recommended an award to Copper Country Solar, LLC.

Bidders who were not recommended for the award are encouraged to schedule a debriefing session with the Solicitation Manager. The debriefing session will provide the bidder with the State’s rationale on why the bidder was not recommended for the award. The Solicitation Manager may be contacted as follows:

Laura Gyorkos, Solicitation Manager gyorkosl@michigan.gov 517-388-6234

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Utility Scale Solar (PV) Panels in the Upper and Northern Lower Peninsulas in Michigan. The term of this contract is 25 years and will be in the form of a land lease agreement.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on 6/11/20. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 8/14/20.

City, State Zip

SDVOB*

No

No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business

Version 4 Revised: 8/2019

Version 4 Revised: 8/2019 Evaluation Synopsis I. Evaluation Process A Responsible Vendor is a vendor that demonstrates it has the ability to successfully perform the duties identified by the solicitation. A Responsive proposal is one that is submitted in accordance with the solicitation instructions and meets all mandatory requirements identified in the solicitation.

Proposal Instructions, Evaluation Process

Only those proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and considered for award.

The full evaluation process is stated in the RFP Proposal Instructions The full evaluation process is stated in the RFP Proposal Instructions.

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Scott Whitcomb, Specialist Department of Natural Resources – Executive Office Laura Gyorkos, Solicitation Manager Department of Natural Resources – Finance and Operations Division

Michelle Crook, Senior Project Engineer Department of Natural Resources – Executive Office Joe Kopp, Principal Consultant Sunstore Energy

David Price, Manager Department of Natural Resources – Forest Resources Division

Matt Fry, Land Use Program Leader Department of Natural Resources – Forest Resources Division

III. Evaluation Results (Includes both Groveland and 7 Mile Pit sites) Technical Evaluation A. Copper Country Power, LLC (CCP) The Evaluation Team determined that Copper Country Power, LLC based on a score of 97, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, System Design and Construction Requirements Section 1.2.2. (10/10)

· Groveland & 7 Mile Pit: Submitted a proposal for another project with UPPCO in anticipation with the release of this project. If CCP is selected, they will submit Groveland Mine for the Birch Solar project with 66MWz of capacity.

· CCP clearly described how they would meet requirements. The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Proposal Requirements Section 1.2.3 including Conceptual Layout Drawing (39/40)

· They provided detailed graphics of each site.

· CCP provided a project development plan for 7 Mile Pit which was a little confusing, as it indicated proposed development for only part of the project site, but Exhibit B showed an intent to lease the whole site (169 acres). It appeared that the same information was submitted for both the Groveland Mine and 7-Mile Pit sites. More information was desired on 7-Mile Pit site proposal.

· The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Staffing Section 3.1 and Key Personnel Section 3.2 (13/15)

· Bidder’s response to Section 3.1 was omitted, and it was not clear from their proposal who would be the project manager or the financial manager for the project(s).

· Section 3.2 The Evaluation Team determined that the key personnel were very qualified and experienced in the industry, on the financing side as well as the development side. Previous projects of personnel were relevant to size and scope of this RFP. Overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Schedule A, Project Plan Section 7 (10/10)

· The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet (25/25)

· The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 97/100 B. Telamon Enterprises, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Telamon Enterprises, LLC based on a score of 80, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, System Design and Construction Requirements Section 1.2.2. (10/10)

· The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Proposal Requirements Section 1.2.3 including Conceptual Layout Drawing (32/40)

· It was difficult to assess the location of the design. They are proposing 80 acres of a solar array shown for the flat area of the pit with an appropriate size 18MW-AC. This not in context with the identified project area for 7 Mile Pit. No discussion of connecting to transmission line.

· The information provided was high level and minimal. For example, the array shows up with the inverter but no indication of transformer or power block size.

· It was difficult to locate all the responses to the requirements of the RFP.

3. Schedule A, Staffing Section 3.1 and Key Personnel Section 3.2 (11/15)

· They included this information in the project plan. The resume templates were not complete with many omissions in the technical qualifications of their staff, project manager, etc.

4. Schedule A, Project Plan Section 7 (7/10)

· The plan is fairly lacking in detail with all milestones not addressed. Their response is contingent upon winning the CMS RFP.

· No financial analysis included. Not all milestones were addressed.

· There is an implicit assumption there is no need to perform interconnection application and studies, however it was not presented in their proposal.

· Focused on build/offtake model that is more appropriate for a behind the meter project.

· Did not indicate agreement to the Section 8. lease.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet (20/25)

· The information provided demonstrates they have the resources and capability to meet the requirements of the RFP but the information was difficult to glean.

· Some portions of this section were blank or incomplete. It appeared that it was a draft but never finalized.

· Their previous projects were relevant to the size and scope of this RFP. They provided a comprehensive list of projects on a separate document.

· They did not describe their role with Selential Energy so it was not clear if they are an identified sub-contractor or other organizations they may be partnering with.

Total Score: 80/100

C. Utopian P, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Utopian Power, LLC based on a score of 27, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, System Design and Construction Requirements Section 1.2.2. (10/10)

· The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Proposal Requirements Section 1.2.3 including Conceptual Layout Drawing (0/40)

· Failed to submit a drawing or detailed responses to the requirements. Response indicated drawing in separate attachment but it wasn’t included.

3. Schedule A, Staffing Section 3.1 and Key Personnel Section 3.2 (5/15)

· President has 1 year of experience and lack of utility scale development experience.

· Resumes were incomplete and difficult to analyze. Difficult to assess the qualifications for a project of this scale.

4. Schedule A, Project Plan Section 7 (2/10)

· Project plan does not specify which location.

· They provided no detail on plan or financial analysis. Just answered bullet points only.

· Not enough detail provided to evaluate.

· Timeframes indicated do not appear to be realistic.

· Did not indicate bidder’s role in the plan.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet (10/25)

· Their prior experience is small in scope and mostly private property owner experience. Small scale commercial or residential projects.

· They do not demonstrate a history of experience that is relevant size and scope of experience for this RFP.

· This company does not demonstrate confidence in executing financing and managing a project of this size.

Total Score: 27/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Utopian P, LLC

VII. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

Groveland Mine Site:

Development Lease

Bidder Input

7 Mile Pit Site:

Development Lease

*Contingent on winning Consumer’s RFP VIII. Negotiations: Copper Country Power, LLC submitted modifications to the lease documents and agreement was reached by both parties.

IX. Award Recommendation:

Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value is based on the proposal meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the factors stated in the Proposal Instructions Evaluation Process section, and price. Copper Country Power, LLC provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include insert best value factors stated below.

Award Recommendation is made to Copper Country Power, LLC for both the Groveland Mine and 7 Mile Pit Sites.

image1.jpeg