I was very surprised to see the latest Huntsville
solicitation that hit the streets recently.
No, not the multibillion dollar PPA RFP (I’ve had my fill of crow on
that one), but the multimillion dollar energy saving performance contract source
sought. One
might wonder at the timing of this release, without the usual fanfare from the
Army energy office. Obviously, it has no
interest from the Energy Initiative Task Force whose sole focus is big
renewable projects. Bringing this out
on the heels of the much ballyhooed PPA deal would tend to distract, not bring
attention to the potential project(s). Regardless, I have always been a huge proponent of the “5thFuel”, energy conservation and this
addition to the tool kit is much welcomed.
As most know, the Army has had a separate ESPC contract
vehicle for some time. This is the 3rd
iteration. Army installations have always had the choice to use the Army
vehicle, the DOE
instrument, ESCO's on the GSA schedule or to initiate a stand-alone,
separate contract. Historically the Army has used the DOE contract vehicle and the Army's own
vehicle in equal measure.
If you look at the past 18 months, the Army has streamlined
its ESPC contracting process so that individual task orders get done in about 14
months or less on average. Also there
are about 50% more actions on the Army as compared to the DOE contract
vehicle.
The news here is that due to the Army's overall increased
use of ESPC's the past 2 years, there is an emerging requirement to recompete
the ESPC vehicle earlier than anticipated to ensure a vehicle is in place to replace the current contract
before the ceiling on that contract is reached. Meeting market demand? What a concept!
So, what are the differences between what DOE is doing and
what Huntsville wants to do? I asked folks in the know in the Army and got
their take:
-
Army vehicle has been faster from start to finish. The Army vehicle requires installations to pay
up-front, out of Base Operating Support funds. The DOE vehicle rolls in all "project
facilitation" costs into the contract, paid back over time. There will be a different
set of ESCO's on each vehicle, and in some regions of the country an
installation may want to use the vehicle that offers access to an ESCO that is
strong in that region.
-
DOE has traditionally had better access to
technical experts at DOE labs than the Army (which is good for projects that
include renewable). The Army feels they
have addressed this and are now doing ESPC's out of Huntsville with renewable.
If the Army can figure out how to overcome some of the
concerns Commanders have in using the current ESPCs (M&V mistrust, egregious markups, etc.), then good on them. More work for everyone is a good thing, so if
you are in this business, get you names in and keep me posted on the
process. The Army clearly has the bit in
their teeth and are off to the races.
And good job keeping it on the down low, if that was the intent. Dan Nolan
1 comment:
thank u for posting click here
Energy Analysis
Post a Comment