November 28, 2016

PROPOSAL EVALUATION: BWL ADVANCED DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ADMS) The BWL has completed the evaluation for BWL Advanced Distribution Management System (ADMS) and the work has been tentatively awarded Advanced Control Systems (ACS). 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 email: foiarequests@lbwl.com 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 13007 Lansing, Michigan 48901-3007 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 517-702-6310 517-702-6042 Fax jbs@lbwl.com

Util-Assist Inc. www.util-assist.com _________________________________ 470 Harry Walker Parkway South, Newmarket, ON, L3Y 0B3 t. 905.952.0477 f. 905.952.3479

January 2016

Selection Report: Lansing Board of Water & Light Advance Distribution Management System (ADMS)

2

T a b l e o f C o nte n t s

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Outage Management System RFP ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Timelines ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Scope ................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Contents of the RFP ............................................................................................................................................................ 4

Key Requirements ............................................................................................................................................................... 5

Vendors .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Approach ................................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Phase 1: Needs Assessment .............................................................................................................................................. 6

Phase 2: RFP Development ................................................................................................................................................ 6

Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................................................................ 6

Scoring ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Vendor Demonstrations ................................................................................................................................................... 8

Vendor Best and Final Bid ............................................................................................................................................... 8

Final Decision ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................. 9

Appendix A: ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10

3

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 a new advanced distribution management system. The purpose of the RFP was to select a vendor to provision an advanced distribution management 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 the seven vendors directly invited and publication to the BWL bid notifications section of the website, BWL received proposals from three qualified firms:

1. ACS (Advanced Control Systems) 2. Schneider Electric 3. Siemens

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 Customer Service, 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 outage management solution vendor. With financial and operational evaluations completed, it was determined that the ACS 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 ADMS solution. An ADMS provides a comprehensive solution for outage management (OMS), energy management (EMS), supervisory control (SCADA) and distribution management (DMS) that integrates the tools into one product with one common interface and one common code base to support monitoring, analysis, control, planning and optimization of the distribution and transmission network. Consequently, BWL engaged Util-Assist to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select and procure a new solution.

The purpose of the RFP was to solicit proposals for the procurement of an ADMS for BWL. Among the many drivers, an ADMS would ensure that BWL implements a solution that supports BWL’s distribution modernization efforts and helps position BWL for future smart grid initiatives. BWL is looking to leverage newer technology to provide functionality that was not previously possible.

Outage Management System RFP

T i m e l i n e s

The RFP process followed the schedule below:

• Needs Assessment & RFP Development: March – May 2015 • RFP Issue Date: May 22, 2015 • Proponent Questions Deadline (“Question Deadline”): June 12, 2015

4

• Proponent Bid Submission Deadline (“Submission Deadline”): July 15, 2015 • Bid Evaluations & Consensus Scoring: July 30, 2015 – Sept 2, 2015 • Short Listed Vendor Presentations: November 9 – 20, 2015 • Review Vendor Presentations: December 1, 2015 • Best and Final Bids Documents due from Vendors: December 18, 2015 • Evaluation & Recommendation: January 11, 2016 • Executive Recommendation: January 19, 2016

S c o p e

The scope of the RFP consisted of the following:

1. Monitoring functionality, for example: • Situational awareness for visibility into daily operations (primary and back-up control center)

• Power flow and characteristics

• Outage and restoration information

• Status of assets (alarms etc.)

2. Analyzing functionality, for example: • Fault identification

• Outage analysis and options

• Options to reduce system losses

• Outage reporting and system engineering analysis

3. Operating functionality, for example: • Switching management

• Management of field crews during outage and restoration activities

• Control to reconfigure the distribution system

4. Optimizing functionality, for example: • Optimizing volt/VAR

• Optimizing generation and transmission

5. Planning functionality, for example, • Forecasting

• Simulation

• Asset management planning and system prioritization

C o n t e n t s o f t h e R F P

The RFP consisted of four separate documents, provided to vendors as a package:

1. Instructions to Proponents • Introduction • Timelines/Key Dates

5

• Glossary of Terms • Instructions for completing proposals • Description of the evaluation process • Legalities • Project Overview • ADMS Requirements • Price Submission Requirements

2. Appendix A • Lansing Board of Water and Light: Electric Service Territory

3. Appendix B • Lansing Board of Water and Light: Water Service Territory

4. Pricing Matrix

K e y R e q u i r e m e n t s

The following formed the minimum requirements of the RFP:

1. ADMS Functional Requirements: The ADMS must have the ability to perform network and operations monitoring specifically for outage management. Reporting and analysis functions must be available for power flow analysis, network connectivity and performance, fault location identification and energy loss analysis. Operational functionality allowing fault isolation and service restoration, Volt/Var control, crew management, schedule outage management and load shedding applications. Optimization functionality enabling load balancing and feeder reconfiguration, automatic generation control, Volt/Var optimization, and Advanced Metering (AMI) capabilities. Planning functionality for distribution load forecasting and simulation modes.

2. ADMS Non Functional Requirements: The ADMS solution must have architectural redundancy, scalability, capacity, security; meet integration point compatibility, user interfaces and informational storage and retrieval abilities.

3. Implementation and Support Services: The vendor proposed ADMS solution must have properly documented implementation plans, project management services, appropriate project staffing, quality assurance, product training services and maintenance and support.

4. Observe BWL OMS Audit Findings: The RFP process provides coverage to ensure technical factors for predicted performance reliability, structured and documented cost analysis and bid evaluation and consideration of alternatives to augment existing systems. The procurement process addresses sufficient system testing prior to operation, upgrade/replacement budgetary planning for over 6 years, ADMS roll out schedule observing connected systems and parallel period to assess system/staff readiness.

Vendors The RFP was posted to the BWL internet and additionally, 7 firms were notified that a RFP was available for bidding.

Proposals were received from the following three firms:

Vendor

6

Vendor Advanced Control Systems (ACS) Schneider Electric Siemens

Approach 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

P h a s e 1 : N e e d s A s s e s s m e n t

Util-Assist engaged BWL stakeholders to gather the ADMS requirements through working group sessions. Meetings were held with the following departments:

• Customer Service • Information Technology • Engineering • Operations

The ADMS 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.

P h a s e 2 : R F P D e v e l o p m e n t

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.

P h a s e 3 : E v a l u a t i o n a n d S e l e c t i o n

E v a l u a t i o n C r i t e r i a 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-to-apples” basis using the pricing functionality matrix. The criteria used by BWL in evaluating and weighting proposals

7

consisted of the following:

Criteria Criteria Description Weight Factor (%) Operations Proponent Company Information and References 6.4%

ADMS Functionality 65%

Implementation and Support Services 8.6%

Pricing Pricing Proposal 20%

Total 100%

Pre-determined evaluation criteria ensured a consistent and fair approach in the evaluation of the bids.

S c o r i n g The evaluation team consisted of the following BWL stakeholders:

Department Stakeholders Engineering/Business Process Kellee Christensen

Operations Project Coordinator Lynn McKinstry

Operations Brian Sebolt

Operations and Reliability Compliance Robert Lalonde

Information Technology Services Greg Hess

Engineering 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 ADMS financial analysis is attached as Appendix A. These scores were combined with the pricing analysis, resulting in the following rankings:

ADMS RFP (10 Years) ACS Evaluation Score

Schneider Evaluation Score

Siemens Evaluation Score

ADMS Pricing – Capital & O&M Base Functionality (10 Yrs.) $7,569,086.53 $7,845,189.42 $8,240,103.28

Price Ranking 1 2 3

Total Operational Weighting 53.38% 52.91% 34.53%

Operational Ranking 1 2 3

Operationally, the scores for two of the three vendors (ACS and Schneider Electric) were quite close; in fact, both vendors

8

can meet BWL’s mandatory requirements. However, the analysis revealed that ACS scored the highest on operational scores (Out of a total 80% Total Operational Weighting, ACS scored 53.38% compared to 52.91% for Schneider Electric and 34.53% for Siemens). In addition, ACS’s pricing is the lower of the two vendors shortlisted for vendor presentations. File a request with the BWL Purchasing department to obtain copies of the scoring sheets.

Overall, ACS was positioned first and Schneider Electric placed second in the weighted rankings.

V e n d o r D e m o n s t r a t i o n s 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 product.

Based on the operational and pricing scores, the two top vendors were invited to deliver on-site demonstrations of their products:

• ACS • Schneider Electric

Util-Assist worked with BWL to develop standard demo scripts to ensure that all vendors presented the same functionality. The demo scripts were organized by time blocks, for example, 20 minutes on company history and 25 minutes on technology roadmaps. 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. Vendors were asked to perform demonstrations of the proposed solution at a utility site with a similar population coverage, commodities and services to that of BWL.

The vendor demonstrations confirmed that both vendors could provide the core functionality required by BWL. Schneider brought the evaluation team to Austin Power to demonstrate the deployed AMDS solution November 10th, 2015. Schneider presented some additional add-in features and a polished user interface. Although these features proved compelling to the stakeholders, they are not a necessity for BWL’s ADMS procurement. Schneider’s product support is based out of Serbia, potentially resulting in extended resolution periods.

ACS brought the evaluation team to the City of Anaheim and Cobb EMC to demonstrate the deployed AMDS solution November 17th and 19th, 2015 respectively. It is important to note that ACS’s proposed approach consisted of localized product support. BWL felt this would be a significant benefit to their organization.

Ultimately, the stakeholders agreed that the vendor demonstrations served to reinforce their original operational scores and that ACS remained the top vendor.

V e n d o r B e s t a n d F i n a l B i d 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.

Util-Assist performed a second pricing analysis on the Best and Final vendor bid submissions, resulting in the following rankings:

9

ADMS RFP (10 Years) ACS Evaluation Score

Siemens Evaluation Score

ADMS Pricing – Capital & O&M Base Functionality (10 Yrs.) $6,881,015.13 $12,144,906.29 Price Ranking 1 2

ACS provided more competitive pricing which is common after detailed discussion has occurred with the vendor outlining the requirement specifications not available in the RFP document. Schneider provided significantly higher pricing, approximately double the initial bid.

F i n a l D e c i s i o n

Having completed the due diligence to support the RFP process, the evaluation team recommends ACS as the winning proponent. ACS’s strong functional components would be provided at a highly 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, ACS for the Advanced Distribution Management System solution to satisfy the requirements in BWL’s ADMS 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.

10

Appendix A:

LBWL_AMDS_RFP_Evaluation_Best & Fin

Total Meter Volume 130,000

Base Functionality (10 Years)ACS

Evaluation Score

Schneider Evaluation

ScoreADMS Pricing - Capital Base Functionality $3,224,986.96 $7,867,303.03 4.5ADMS Pricing - O&M Base Functionality (10 Yrs) $4,960,492.71 $6,041,589.97 10ADMS Total Pricing - Base Functionality (10 Yrs) $8,185,479.67 $13,908,893.00NPV Total Pricing - 10 Yrs (NPV with a 5% discount) $6,881,015.13 $12,144,906.29

Vendor Amount % of IntegrationPrice Ranking on NPV 1 2 ACS 155,479.75$ 10.00%Difference Compared to Lowest Individual Price $0.00 $5,263,891.16 Schneider 1,089,950.00$ 20.50%Total Operational Weighting 53.38% 52.91% Average 622,714.87$ 15.25%Total Pricing Weighting Based on Gross 20.00% 11.77%Total Pricing Weighting Based on NPV 20.00% 11.33%Total Weighting Based on Gross 73.38% 64.68%Total Weighting Based on NPV 73.38% 64.24%Total Weighting Ranking 1 2

Financing

Interest RateYears

Travel Costs

$0.00

$2,000,000.00

$4,000,000.00

$6,000,000.00

$8,000,000.00

$10,000,000.00

$12,000,000.00

$14,000,000.00

$16,000,000.00

ACS Evaluation Score Schneider Evaluation Score

ADMS Total Pricing - Base Functionality (10 Yrs)

ADMS Total Pricing - Base Functionality (10 Yrs)