The BWL has completed the evaluation for Advanced Metering Infrastructure and the work has been tentatively awarded to Leidos.

Transcription

1 November 28, 2016 PROPOSAL EVALUATION: Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) The BWL has completed the evaluation for Advanced Metering Infrastructure and the work has been tentatively awarded to Leidos. The Bid Tabulation for this RFP can be found on the LBWL.com website at The BWL does not release public documents without following the proper public disclosure guidelines for information available to the public under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act. As such, should you desire any document that may be within the custody of the BWL, please direct your Freedom of Information Act request to the following Otherwise, requests can be sent via US mail to: Brandie F. Ekren, Esq. Freedom Of Information Act Coordinator Lansing Board of Water & Light 1201 S. Washington Ave. P.O. Box Lansing, Michigan Please be specific with your request. Any responsive information will be disclosed via U.S. Mail and may involve an administrative cost. Thank you very much for your proposal. We will retain you on our bidders list for future projects. Sincerely, BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT Jeff Schwarz Purchasing Department Fax

2 July 2016 Selection Report: Lansing Board of Water & Light AMI, MDM & Installation Services Util-Assist Inc Harry Walker Parkway South, Newmarket, ON, L3Y 0B3 t f

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 3 Introduction... 3 AMI, MDM and Installation Service RFP... 3 Timelines... 3 Scope... 4 Contents of the RFP... 6 Key Requirements... 7 Vendors... 7 Approach... 7 Phase 1: Needs Assessment... 7 Phase 2: RFP Development... 8 Evaluation Criteria... 8 Scoring... 9 Vendor Demonstrations Vendor Best and Final Bid Final Decision Conclusion Appendix A:

4 Executive Summary (Lansing Board of Water & Light) BWL issued a request for proposal (RFP) to invite qualified vendors to submit proposals for the procurement of AMI (Advanced Metering Infrastructure), MDM (Meter Data Management) System and Installation Services. The purpose of the RFP was to select a vendor to provision and install an AMI and MDM system. Util-Assist was engaged to work with BWL to develop the RFP and guide the procurement process. BWL is confident that the most qualified and successful vendors were given the opportunity to submit proposals in response. From 28 vendors directly invited and publication to the BWL bid notifications section of the website, BWL received interest, questions, partial and full proposals from multiple firms with full proposal from 6 qualified firms: 1. Aclara 2. Graybar 3. Itron 4. Landis + Gyr 5. Leidos 6. ETNA Supply The responses were evaluated based on a number of predetermined criteria, including respondents understanding of the requirements, completeness of the proposals, technical capabilities of the systems, experience of the vendors, and pricing. An evaluation team, with representation from Information Technology Services, Engineering and Operations provided a wealth of both technical and operational knowledge to analyze the vendor responses. The evaluation team assessed proponents objectively, with the end goal of selecting the best-fit AMI, MDM and Installation Service solution vendor. With financial and operational evaluations completed, it was determined that the Leidos proposal most closely matched all of the requirements, providing strong support for the system technical requirements expressed throughout the RFP. BWL is confident that the information presented here demonstrates that due diligence requirements have been completed regarding the selection of a qualified vendor. Introduction BWL pursued proposals from qualified firms to provide an AMI, MDM and Installation Service solution. BWL s vision for smart grid is to modernize the electric grid to make it more reliable and secure and to meet future demand growth. BWL expects that the AMI and MDM solution will serve as vital tools for achieving this vision. The installation of smart meters in the BWL service territory will provide a wealth of data to better use system capacity, transmission and distribution infrastructure, manage outages more efficiently, and provide the ability to develop new rates based on customer usage patterns. Consequently, BWL engaged Util-Assist to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select and procure a new solution. AMI, MDM and Installation Service RFP Timelines The RFP process followed the schedule below: Needs Assessment & RFP Development: July 2015 RFP Issue Date: August 14,

5 Proponent Questions Deadline ( Question Deadline ): September 4, 2015 Proponent Bid Submission Deadline ( Submission Deadline ): October 2, 2015 Bid Evaluations & Consensus Scoring: November 2 December 18, 2015 Short Listed Vendor Demonstrations: February 16 23, 2016 Review Vendor Demonstrations: March 11, 2016 Best and Final Bids Documents due from Vendors: June 16, 2016 Evaluation & Recommendation: July 22, 2016 Executive Recommendation: July 28, 2016 Scope The scope of the RFP consisted of the following: 1. Advanced Metering Infrastructure Electric Meters i. Communication Modules, Physical Attributes, Memory and Storage ii. Compliance with Standards and Regulations iii. Electric Module Billing Information iv. Meter and Module Functionality v. Firmware Upgradeability vi. Remote Disconnect Capabilities Water Modules i. Compatibility with Multiple Meter Manufacturers ii. Physical Dimensions & Environmental Tolerances, Memory and Storage iii. Power Supply and Draw iv. Billing Information v. Firmware Upgradeability vi. Alternate Reading Methods vii. Large/Small Potable Water Meters Collector i. Design, Dimensions and Layout, Equipment Capacity, Memory and Storage ii. Frequency of Transmissions (Collector to HES) iii. Transmission of Scheduled Readings and Event Data iv. Reliability, Adaptability and Fail-Over Design v. Surge Protection and Battery Backup vi. Installation Requirements vii. Firmware Upgradability viii. Environmental Operating Range ix. Redundant WAN x. Repeater Options xi. Troubleshooting Process Head End System (HES) i. User Interface ii. Reporting 4

6 iii. Integration iv. Transmission of Scheduled and Real-time Read Files and Event Files v. Operational and Instrumentation Data vi. Integrations (MDM, OMS, GIS and CIS) and Synchronizations schedule Wide Area Network (WAN): i. Hardware Design, Installation and Configuration ii. Throughput Options, Bandwidth and Data Plans iii. Security and Certifications Home Area Network (HAN): i. Communication Standards, Protocols and Pairing ii. Module Firmware Upgradability iii. Device Integration (Thermostats, In-Home Displays, Water Heater Controls, Heat Pump Controls, Pool Pumps, Smart Plugs) iv. User Portal Distribution Automation (DA): i. Firmware Upgradability ii. Communication Channels iii. Load Fault Indicators and Capacitor Banks iv. Remote Terminal Units (RTUs), Reclosers and Switching Devices v. Primary and Transformer Metering 2. Field Installation Services Installations i. Minimum Competencies ii. Pre-Installation Inspection, Electric and Water (including retrofit) Install Procedure iii. Customer Contact Procedure, Scheduling and Coordination iv. Tampering v. FSR Vehicles vi. Quality Assurance, Installation Auditing, Service Quality Standard vii. Reporting Requirements viii. Installation Warranties ix. Meter and Seal Disposal 3. Workforce Management (WFM) System i. Dispatching and Inventory Control ii. Data Collection iii. Handheld Device and Charging iv. Digital Imaging v. GPS Customer Services i. Call Center Services ii. Complaints and Claims Administration iii. Communications Materials iv. Customer Contact v. Customer Information 5

7 4. Meter Data Management System (MDM) Validation, Editing and Estimation (VEE): i. Manual/Automated Exception Management ii. Workflow/Queue Management iii. Virtual Meters iv. Data Aggregation, Versioning and Analysis v. Rules Management vi. Tracking Events and Virtual Disconnect vii. Voltage Alarm (Hi/Low) and Tamper Alarm Management viii. Outage/Restoration Management Functionality System Reporting: i. AMI Performance Levels ii. Operational Data/Indicators/Events iii. Billing Schedule Maintenance iv. Multiple Systems or Sub Groups v. Access, Graphing and Custom Queries vi. Unbilled Consumption Audit Report System Integration: i. Synchronization Schedule ii. AMI (Billing/Operational Data Management, Network Communication Information, Remote Disconnect / Reconnect Capabilities) iii. Customer Information System (Billing Quantity Requests & Responses, Billing Cycle Management), iv. CSR Support Tools v. Service Order Interface vi. Geographic Information System (GIS) Contents of the RFP The RFP consisted of four separate documents, provided to vendors as a package: 1. Instructions to Proponents Introduction Timelines/Key Dates Glossary of Terms Instructions for completing proposals Description of the evaluation process Legalities Project Overview AMI, MDM and Installation Services Requirements Price Submission Requirements 2. Appendix A Service Area Maps 3. Appendix B 6

8 System Acceptance Test (SAT) Scripts 4. Appendix C Meter Configurations 5. Pricing Matrix Key Requirements The following formed the minimum requirements of the RFP: 1. AMI, MDM and Installation Services Functional Requirements: Meter infrastructure must meet the operational requirements for electric and water services appropriate to the territory. Meter Data Management System must enable automated and manual data manipulation, query, validation, extraction, reporting to accommodate the operational, billing and customer service business needs. Installation services must meet regional labour requirements, provide reliable and cost effective deployment, while maintaining quality and safety assurances. 2. AMI, MDM and Installation Services Non Functional Requirements: The proposed Vendor solution must have architectural redundancy, industry standard network and performance service levels, scalability, capacity, security. BWL must maintain ownership of collected and stored data in AMI, MDM and Installation process. 3. Implementation and Support Services: The AMI, MDM and Installation solution must have properly documented implementation plans, project management services, device and installation warranties, appropriate project staffing, quality assurance, product training services and maintenance and support. Vendors The RFP was posted to the BWL internet and additionally, 28 firms were notified that a RFP was available for bidding. Twelve proposals were received, of those complete proposals were received from the following 6 firms: Approach Vendors Aclara Graybar Itron Landis + Gyr Leidos ETNA Supply BWL and Util-Assist followed a three-phased approach to develop the RFP and evaluate and select a vendor: 1. Needs Assessment Phase 2. RFP Development Phase 3. RFP Evaluation and Selection Phase Phase 1: Needs Assessment Util-Assist engaged BWL stakeholders to gather the AMI, MDM and Installation Services requirements through working group sessions. Meetings were held with the following departments: Customer Service 7

9 Information Technology Engineering Operations The AMI, MDM and Installation Services requirements procured through the RFP process were considered to be exclusive to BWL based upon the information gathered through the consultation process with Util-Assist. Phase 2: RFP Development Util-Assist worked with the BWL departments above to ensure that the gathered requirements were clearly expressed and documented within the RFP. Supplementary to the RFP, Util-Assist developed the following documents as part of the scoring package: Best Response Document Weightings Sheet Evaluator Score Sheet Final Pricing and Evaluation Model To ensure that there was no bias in the operational evaluation of vendors, the Best Response document provided RFP evaluators with scoring guidelines. In addition, weighting spreadsheets were used to properly assign BWL s priorities to the RFP requirements. By finalizing these documents prior to receipt of RFP responses, the Best Response documentation and weighting model formed the foundation for a fair and unbiased evaluation process. Phase 3: Evaluat ion and Selection Evaluation Criteria Vendor submissions were evaluated on two fronts: operational strength, as described by the vendor documentation and evaluated using the Best Response Document, and pricing as submitted by the vendors and evaluated on an apples-toapples basis using the pricing functionality matrix. The criteria used by BWL in evaluating and weighting proposals consisted of the following: Operations Criteria Criteria Description Weight Factor (%) Proponent Company Information and References 5% Advanced Metering Infrastructure 55% Field Installation Services 15% Meter Data Management System 20% AMI and MDM Non-Functional Requirements 15% Pricing Pricing Proposal 20% Total 100% Pre-determined evaluation criteria ensured a consistent and fair approach in the evaluation of the bids. 8

10 Scoring The evaluation team consisted of the following BWL stakeholders: Department Engineering/Business Process Supervisor Utility Design Mgr. Customer Projects Primary Metering Water Engineer Engineer, Water & Steam Distribution Customer Service Meter Reading Information Technology Services Operations Project Coordinator Director, Transmission and Distribution Stakeholders Kellee Christensen Jennifer E. Carr Ray Moore Christopher Gombosi Derek Ambs Joe Eastman Bob Perialas Debbie Reid Greg Hess Lynn McKinstry Wayne Lynn Individually, these evaluators compared each vendor s response for a given requirement against the ideal response as outlined in the pre-determined Best Response document. Operational scores were awarded based on the information contained within the bid response documents, eliminating any consideration of BWL s past experience with the bidding companies. This process was consistent with best practices and preserved an unbiased procurement process. Util-Assist averaged the operational scores across departments and factored in weightings to determine a Total Operational Weighting for each vendor. The AMI, MDM and Installation Services financial analysis is attached as Appendix A. These scores were combined with the pricing analysis, resulting in the following rankings: AMI, MDM and Installation Services RFP Leidos Evaluation Score Itron Evaluation Score AMI/MDM/Install Pricing - Capital & O&M Base Functionality $59,246, $57,159, Price Ranking 2 1 Total Operational Weighting 56.82% 55.12% Operational Ranking 1 2 Operationally, the scores for two of the two vendors (Leidos and Itron) were quite close; in fact, both vendors can meet BWL s mandatory requirements. However, the analysis revealed that Leidos scored the highest on operational scores (Out of a total 80% Total Operational Weighting, Leidos scored 56.82% compared to 55.12% for Itron). However, Itron s pricing is the lower of the two vendors shortlisted for vendor presentations. Please contact the BWL Purchasing department to view copies of the scoring sheets. 9

11 Overall, Leidos was positioned first and Itron placed second in the weighted rankings. Vendor Demonstrations To ensure that the written responses and functionality descriptions in the RFP matched the state of the actual technology released, vendor demonstrations with the two finalists were held which gave BWL the opportunity to see the actual methodology, system demonstrations and data conversion abilities. Based on the operational and pricing scores, the two top vendors were invited to deliver on-site demonstrations of their products: Leidos Itron Util-Assist worked with BWL to develop standard agenda to ensure that the vendors presented the same functionality and addressed key areas of the bid responses requiring more detail. The demonstration agenda was organized by time blocks, for example, 20 minutes on company history and 25 minutes on data conversion methodology. This evaluation process was considered critical in satisfying the due diligence requirements of the team, as it provided the opportunity for the group to see the products, and to satisfy any outstanding concerns before making a final decision, and initiating the contract negotiation process. The vendor demonstrations confirmed that both vendors could meet the core requirements of BWL. Both vendors followed the agenda ensuring demonstration requirements and key question were addressed. The Leidos AMI offering at time of bid included some meters which are not compliant with IPv6 communication protocol; however, during presentations Leidos indicated that offerings in subsequent bids to other customers and offering for BWL installations would be compliant. Itron s solution was IPv6 compliant. Itron did not identify the installation vendor they partnered with. Both MDM systems met the operational requirements of BWL however, Leidos MDM flexibility, reporting and existing analytic functionality was preferred by the group Ultimately, the stakeholders agreed that the vendor demonstrations served to reinforce their original operational scores and that Leidos remained the top vendor. Vendor Best and Final Bid Vendors were instructed to provide Best and Final bids during the on-site demonstrations for the purpose of providing an accurate pricing matrix after having the opportunity to fully understand BWL s requirements. Best and Final offers were to include the following: Updated Pricing Updated Project plan Remedies for missed milestones Updated Roles and responsibilities (RACI chart) Responses to additional BWL questions Util-Assist performed a second pricing analysis on the Best and Final vendor bid submissions, resulting in the following rankings: 10

12 AMI, MDM and Installation Services RFP Leidos Evaluation Score Itron Evaluation Score AMI/MDM/Install Pricing - Capital & O&M Base Functionality $54,105, $53,745, Price Ranking 2 1 Both vendors provided more competitive pricing and updated RACI models. The evaluation of the BAFO documents revealed: Itron s pricing for installation is twice the rate of Leidos. The Leidos MDM solution offers advanced functionality, flexibility, and extensive reporting. Leidos also provided attention to detail with respect to change management and customized training. Leidos previously worked with the Department of Defense and offers extensive experience with cyber and physical security of hosted services. The Leidos product, Elster, is part of the Honeywell Corporation. Elster s offerings in home/business energy management and automation closely align with BWL s technology roadmap for future Smart Grid solutions to customers. Final Decision Having completed the due diligence to support the RFP process, the evaluation team recommends Leidos as the winning proponent. Leidos strong functional components would be provided at a competitive price, which in combination, results in the best solution for BWL s requirements. Conclusion Util-Assist and BWL are confident that a comprehensive and consistent process has been undertaken and successfully completed, and that the due diligence requirements for a decision of this magnitude have been satisfied. It is recommended that BWL enter into contract negotiations with the top ranking vendor, Leidos for the AMI, MDM and Installation Service solution to satisfy the requirements in BWL s RFP. Upon executive approval of PO, funds be allocated to advanced discovery during the contract negotiation process with the selected vendor. Budgeting and scheduling will be revised throughout the discovery process. 11

13 Appendix A: Base Functionality (15 Years) Leidos Evaluation Score Itron Evaluation Score Capital Pricing - Total $29,689, $26,993, Capital Pricing - AMI & Corp info $20,917, $20,102, Capital Pricing - MDM $228, $1, Capital Pricing - Install $8,543, $6,889, O&M Pricing - Total $24,416, $26,752, O&M Pricing - AMI $21,168, $23,896, O&M Pricing - MDM (cost of funds) $27, $ O&M Pricing - Install (cost of funds) $3,220, $2,855, AMI Total Pricing $54,105, $53,745, NPV Total Pricing - 15 Yrs (NPV with a 5% discount) $46,229, $45,084, Average Price Per Meter $ $ Price Ranking on NPV 2 1 Difference Compared to Lowest Individual Price $1,144, $0.00 Total Operational Weighting 56.82% 55.12% Total Pricing Weighting Based on Gross 19.87% 20.00% Total Pricing Weighting Based on NPV 19.50% 20.00% Total Weighting Based on Gross 76.68% 75.12% Total Weighting Based on NPV 76.32% 75.12% Total Weighting Ranking 1 2 Financing AMI Interest Rate AMI Term Years MDM Interest Rate MDMTerm Years Installation Interest Rate Installation Term Years NPV Discount % 12