Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CORRESPONDENCE - RFP - 8433 COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL ENERGY PROGRAMS THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT (2)
WORK ORDER PURSUANT TO A MASTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND RESEARCH INTO ACTION, INC. WORK ORDER NUMBER: 2 PROJECT TITLE: Commercial & Residential Energy Programs Evaluation ORIGINAL BID/RFP NUMBER & NAME: 8433 Commercial & Residential Energy Programs Third Party Consultant MASTER AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 2017 OWNER’S REPRESENTATIVE: Brian Tholl WORK ORDER COMMENCEMENT DATE: 4/30/18 WORK ORDER COMPLETION DATE: 2/28/19 MAXIMUM FEE: (time and reimbursable direct costs): $168,227.00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SCOPE OF SERVICES: Research Into Action is evaluating the energy and water saving programs administered by City of Fort Collins Utilities. Service Provider agrees to perform the services identified above and on the attached forms in accordance with the terms and conditions contained herein and in the Master Agreement between the parties. In the event of a conflict between or ambiguity in the terms of the Master Agreement and this Work Order (including the attached forms) the Master Agreement shall control. The attached forms consisting of fifteen (15) pages are hereby accepted and incorporated herein, by this reference, and Notice to Proceed is hereby given after all parties have signed this document. SERVICE PROVIDER: Research Into Action, Inc. By: Date: Name: Jane Peters Title: President DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-F071-44AD-A4FA-E962075EDEA0 6/5/2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0334A671-1396-4EAB-BEA4-A550C87F6AD3 OWNER’S ACCEPTANCE & EXECUTION: This Work Order and the attached Contract Documents are hereby accepted and incorporated herein by this reference. ACCEPTANCE: Date: Brian Tholl, Project Manager REVIEWED: Date: Marisa Donegon, Buyer APPROVED AS TO FORM: Date: Name,City Attorney's Title (if greater than $1,000,000) ACCEPTANCE: John Phelan, Energy Services Manager Date: ACCEPTANCE: Lisa Rosintoski, Deputy Director, Customer Connections Date: ACCEPTANCE: Kevin Gertig, Utilities Executive Director (if greater than $1,000,000) Date: ACCEPTANCE: Gerry Paul, Purchasing Director (if greater than $60,000) Date: ACCEPTANCE: Darin Atteberry, City Manager (if greater than $1,000,000) Date: ATTEST: City Clerk (if greater than $1,000,000) Date: DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-F071-44AD-A4FA-E962075EDEA0 6/4/2018 6/4/2018 6/5/2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0334A671-1396-4EAB-BEA4-A550C87F6AD3 6/5/2018 ATTACHMENT A WORK ORDER SCOPE OF SERVICES Scope of Work This document details the scope of work Research Into Action and its partners Apex Analytics and Mesa Point Energy (the evaluation team) will undertake to evaluate the energy and water saving programs administered by City of Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities). In addition to conducting primary research, the evaluation team will collaborate with Utilities, sharing lessons learned from the team’s evaluations of similar programs throughout the U.S. Program Description The evaluation will focus on the programs Utilities identified as high-priority for 2018 research. These programs include Peak Partners, Solar Offerings, Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP), and Code Compliance. Peak Partners: A demand response program that utilizes Wi-Fi enabled thermostats and cellular water heater controllers for residential customers. The program also installs water conservation devices such as shower heads when a water heater control is installed. Solar Offerings: The Solar Program offers Utilities ratepayers opportunities to purchase solar power either through offsetting the cost of installation of their own panels, buying into community solar system, or supporting larger commercial solar installation through the purchasing of long-term power purchase agreements. Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP): IDAP seeks to increase the efficiency of new buildings by integrating energy efficiency into the schematic phase of building design and coordinating design disciplines to develop integrated efficiency schemes that are greater than what could be achieved with a prescriptive approach. Code Compliance: The City of Fort Collins has developed building codes that seek to help the City achieve the objectives of its Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan by reducing the energy consumption of new buildings. Assessing the rate of non-compliance with these codes will help the City understand their effects and identify ways to make them more effective. Evaluation Approach The evaluation will comprise seven tasks, where initiation and evaluation planning occur in Task 1, Task 2 through Task 6 each represent evaluation activities for a different efficiency program, and management and reporting constitute Task 7. Task 1: Project Initiation & Planning The evaluation team will hold kickoff discussions with key Utilities staff involved DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-0334A671-F071-1396-4EAB-44AD-A4FA-BEA4-E962075EDEA0 A550C87F6AD3 in delivering each program targeted for evaluation in 2018. These discussions will provide an opportunity for the evaluation team to develop a more detailed understanding of program offerings and processes, which will inform data collection efforts and our interpretation of evaluation findings. In addition, these discussions will address evaluation objectives, approaches and timelines to ensure that all key program staff are informed about, and supportive of, evaluation activities. The evaluation team will also review key program documents that provide insight on program offerings and processes. We do not anticipate that these discussions will result in substantial changes to the research objectives or evaluation approach described in this scope of work. As a result, this scope of work will serve as the evaluation plan for the 2018 evaluation. If it becomes necessary to substantially alter the evaluation approach for a particular program from what is described here, we will draft and provide to Utilities staff a memo explaining the reasoning for the change and describing the revised approach. Deliverables: Meeting agendas and materials describing evaluation approach Memos describing substantial changes to approach described here, as needed Task 2: Code Compliance The code compliance evaluation will help Fort Collins maximize the energy savings its building codes achieve by identifying opportunities to focus education and enforcement efforts and establishing a baseline level of compliance against which the City can measure the impacts of those efforts. The code compliance evaluation will include both qualitative and quantitative elements. It will create quantitative estimates of the rate of code compliance and the energy impact of non-compliance and will place these findings in the qualitative context of the process of plan review and site inspections and builders’ experience. Impact Evaluation The quantitative portion of the code compliance evaluation will seek to identify key code compliance metrics within the City of Fort Collins, specifically: 1. The rate of compliance 2. The energy impact of non-compliance To determine these key metrics, we will draw a sample of 30 projects split between residential and non-residential projects. Our effort will consist of the following tasks: DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-0334A671-F071-1396-4EAB-44AD-A4FA-BEA4-E962075EDEA0 A550C87F6AD3 Code review: The team will review the current codes in place in Fort Collins and identify a list of code items to validate during project reviews. Sampling: We will request a database of recently completed building projects and draw a sample of 30 projects to review. Depending on the population statistics, the sample may consist of a simple random sample within the two primary sectors or it may be stratified into significant groupings beyond just residential and non-residential. Data collection: Once the sample is identified, the evaluation team will work with Fort Collins Utilities and relevant city staff to request and receive all relevant project documentation for the sampled projects. This documentation may include as built drawings, architectural plans, equipment specifications, and other relevant documents. Desk reviews: We will review each project’s documents and compare to the established list of key code compliance items. Site verification and phone interviews: Validate findings through site visits of select sites from each strata and/or phone surveys with builders or building owners. Energy modeling: To estimate the energy impacts of building below, at, or above code, the evaluation team will assemble a set of energy models reflecting key attributes of the sampled projects. These models will be run using inputs that reflect full compliance with code to estimate annual full-compliance baseline energy consumption. We will then alter various inputs based on our findings and re-run the energy models to estimate the effects of the various code elements on energy consumption. We will then roll up our findings to the sample of projects and extrapolate those findings to the population of projects across the city. Process Evaluation The qualitative elements of the code compliance evaluation will achieve two broad objectives: they will develop a comprehensive understanding of the City’s plan review and inspection process and they will provide additional context to quantitative findings through an exploration of builders’ experience with the code compliance process and requirements. Table 1 summarizes these objectives. Table 1: Code Compliance Qualitative Research Objectives Research Objective Researchable Issues Develop comprehensive understanding of plan review and inspection process What are key requirements for code submittals? How do staff interpret current energy codes? What are the communication methods from plan review to builder, and how effective are they? What elements of the review process, if any, could be streamlined and/or improved? Explore builder experience with code compliance process and requirements What elements of the building codes and/or review process, if any, are unclear to builders? What code requirements are most challenging to meet? DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-0334A671-F071-1396-4EAB-44AD-A4FA-BEA4-E962075EDEA0 A550C87F6AD3 Where do builders perceive non-compliance to be greatest? Why? In-depth interviews with City of Fort Collins code officials will inform our understanding of the plan review and inspection process. We will work with Utilities and Building Department staff to identify appropriate respondents for these interviews. We anticipate completing approximately five interviews with staff involved in the plan review and inspection process, with each interview lasting up to 45 minutes. We will also conduct in-depth interviews with architecture and engineering (A&E) firms. A&E firms may not accurately self-report their own compliance levels directly, however, questions on the elements of the building codes and compliance process they find most challenging and areas where they believe others may fail to meet code will provide context to quantitative findings on areas and levels of non-compliance. We anticipate completing up to ten interviews with A&E firms, with each interview lasting approximately 20 minutes. We will work with Utilities and the Building Department to identify A&E firms with recent experience submitting plans for review to pursue as interview targets. Deliverables Draft and final interview guides Stand-alone draft and final report, further described in Task 7. Task 3: Peak Partners The evaluation of the Peak Partners program will focus on program processes and participant experiences with, and attitudes toward, program technologies. Based on a survey of participants and interviews with MDU property managers, the evaluation will address three research objectives, summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Peak Partners Evaluation Research Objectives Research Objective Researchable Issues Identify barriers to adoption of a Peak Partner thermostat vs. other smart thermostat options (e.g. Nest) What motivates participants to replace a thermostat? To what extent are participants aware of smart thermostats? Have they considered smart thermostats? What smart thermostat features are appealing to participants? Identify barriers that prevent participants from keeping Peak Partner thermostats online How satisfied are participants with the features and performance of their Peak Partner thermostats? Why are thermostats no longer online? What proportion have been replaced by non-program thermostats? What proportion have lost connection? Are customers aware that their thermostats are no longer online? DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-0334A671-F071-1396-4EAB-44AD-A4FA-BEA4-E962075EDEA0 A550C87F6AD3 Identify barriers that prevent additional MDU property managers from adopting electric water heater controllers To what extent are non-participating MDU property managers aware of the opportunity to install electric water heater controllers? What concerns do MDU property managers have about installing water heater controllers? Two data collection activities will inform our evaluation of the Peak Partners program: a survey of program participants and in-depth interviews with non- participating MDU property managers. Participant Survey We will conduct a web-based survey of participants. This survey will include skip logic to target distinct question sets to participants that are currently controllable as well as past participants whose thermostats are no longer controllable. In consultation with Utilities staff, we may further target the survey structure based on participant behaviors indicated in Utilities’ telemetry data. If this added targeting increases survey development costs, working with Utilities’ evaluation manager, we may shift resources from the MDU property manager interviews to cover the additional costs. We anticipate that each population will answer approximately 25 questions in the survey. Assuming a participant population of approximately 2,500 deployed thermostats, 1,900 of which are currently controllable, we will seek to complete 66 surveys with participants whose thermostats are controllable and 61 surveys with participants whose thermostats are no longer controllable. This sample will allow for estimates at a 90% confidence level with 10% precision. We will invite participants to complete in the survey by email and send multiple follow-up email reminders to participants who do not respond to the initial email invitation. Where possible, we will seek to coordinate survey efforts with Utilities’ annual Peak Partners participant survey. MDU Property Manager interviews To assess barriers to non-participating MDU property managers’ adoption of electric water heater controllers, we will conduct telephone interviews with non- participating MDU property managers. We anticipate each interview will last approximately 20 minutes. A majority of the MDU property managers likely to be eligible for the program are already participating. As a result, we will seek to interview a census of the three MDU property managers Utilities has identified as likely eligible but not participating. If we are unable to interview all three non- participating property managers, we may fill out the sample with participants. While barriers have not prevented participating property managers from entering the program, these managers can provide insight into the concerns and challenges they faced and their perspective can add context to the limited number of non-participating property manager interviews we are able to complete. DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-0334A671-F071-1396-4EAB-44AD-A4FA-BEA4-E962075EDEA0 A550C87F6AD3 Deliverables Draft and final survey instruments Chapter in a final report (see Task 7) Task 4: Solar Offerings The solar program evaluation will include an industry review to provide context to Utilities’ finding that its solar energy modeling has consistently over-estimated energy production. It will also include a survey of participants to assess their motivations, experience with the program and the solar energy systems they installed, and the potential value of alternative program designs or tools. Table 3 summarizes research objectives for the evaluation of Utilities’ solar programs. Table 3: Solar Programs Evaluation Research Objectives Research Objectives Researchable Issues Identify insights from across the industry that may explain consistent over-estimation of solar energy production in modeling results How does the accuracy of Utilities’ solar energy modeling efforts compare to experience in other parts of the country? What efforts are underway, across the industry, to increase the accuracy of solar energy modeling? How do the planning practices of other program administrators account, if at all, for modeled savings that are consistently overestimated? Assess the extent to which the program is meeting customer expectations and needs What motivates customers to participate in the program? What resources and information do customers need to install solar energy systems? Does the program provide those resources? How important are various financing options in allowing solar projects to move forward? How satisfied are customers with their experience with contractors? (Including clarity of sales dialog and contract, quality of installation, turn-on/commissioning process, and post-install support). What impact did participation have on customer perceptions of Utilities? Identify opportunities for continued customer engagement post-rebate Are participants satisfied with the availability of energy generation and usage monitoring, and do they understand their bills? What did participants learn or how have their perceptions changed since installing a solar energy system? What type of additional information or support would participants like Utilities to provide? Impact Evaluation In a previous review, Utilities found that the solar energy modeling conducted for its solar program offerings consistently over-estimates actual solar energy production, with actual results typically ranging from 88% to 92% of modeled DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-0334A671-F071-1396-4EAB-44AD-A4FA-BEA4-E962075EDEA0 A550C87F6AD3 0F estimates. The solar programs impact evaluation will consist of an industry review to determine how this discrepancy compares to the experience of other program administrators and what steps those industry actors have taken to address this discrepancy. The U.S. Department of Energy is currently overseeing a working group to improve the accuracy of solar energy modeling. We will begin the industry review by reviewing any resources this effort has produced. We will also search conference proceedings and other industry and academic literature for additional studies about the accuracy of solar energy modeling. In addition to gathering information on the accuracy of solar energy modeling and causes of inaccuracy, through this literature review, we will seek to identify up to five program administrators that have taken steps to assess the accuracy of their solar energy modeling. We will then reach out to these program administrators through email correspondence and informal telephone interviews to understand any steps their organizations have taken to correct for inaccuracies in solar energy modeling, including any use of discount factors. Process Evaluation The process evaluation will draw on a web-based survey of participants in the solar program to assess the extent to which the program is meeting customer expectations and needs and identify opportunities for engagement post-rebate. We anticipate the survey will ask respondents approximately 25 questions. While the survey will use skip logic to ensure that respondents receive appropriate questions to probe their responses, it will not include complex logic to direct participants into distinct question blocks based on their characteristics or responses. We will invite participants to participate in the survey by email and send multiple follow-up emails to encourage those who do not respond to the initial invitation to take the survey. If feasible given the size of the solar program participant population, we will seek to survey a sufficient number of responses to provide 90% confidence with 10% precision across the full sample of participants.1 Deliverables Draft and final survey instruments Chapter in a final report (see Task 7) Task 5: Integrated Design Assistance The Integrated Design Assistance Program evaluation will focus on opportunities 1 In small populations achieving a sample large enough to provide 90%/10% confidence/precision can require surveying a relatively large proportion of the population, necessitating a survey response rate that may be impractical to achieve. If this is the case for the solar program, or any other survey in this evaluation, we will keep Utilities staff informed of our response rate after we have contacted (and re- contacted) non-respondents multiple times to obtain completes. DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-0334A671-F071-1396-4EAB-44AD-A4FA-BEA4-E962075EDEA0 A550C87F6AD3 to improve program processes, including participants’ motivations and barriers to participation and their experiences with program processes. The evaluation will also seek to identify opportunities for the program to reach out to additional construction projects in the early design phase. Table 4 summarizes the research objectives the evaluation will address. Table 4: IDAP Evaluation Research Objectives Assess participant motivations and barriers to participation Assess participant experience with program processes Identify additional opportunities to reach and recruit projects in the design phase How do participants become aware of the program? What motivates participants to participate in IDAP? What concerns or challenges did participants face in deciding to participate in the program? What elements of program support did participants find most valuable? What types of additional support could the program provide? What was participants’ experience working with the program’s consultants? What types of information and resources do participants use in the early design phase? What steps do participants take during early design that might allow the program to identify projects in that phase? To address these research objectives, we will conduct in-depth interviews with two groups: key participant decision-makers and program consultants. Key Decision-Maker Interviews To understand participants’ program experience, motivations, and barriers, we will interview key participant decision-makers involved in IDAP projects. These decision makers could be developers, architects, building owners, or others. We will determine the most appropriate decision-maker on a project-by-project basis, seeking to interview individuals who were closely involved with decisions related to the project’s design and who actively interacted with the program. We will conduct in-depth telephone interviews with up to 10 of these key decision makers. We anticipate that each interview will last approximately 30 minutes. Consultant Interviews To provide further perspective on participants’ experience and motivations, and gain perspective on barriers that may prevent wider participation, we will interview the program consultants that work with organizations as they participate in IDAP. We will seek to interview the three consultants that have been involved in the bulk of the program’s projects. We anticipate that each interview will last up to one hour. Research Objective Researchable Issues DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-0334A671-F071-1396-4EAB-44AD-A4FA-BEA4-E962075EDEA0 A550C87F6AD3 Deliverables Draft and final interview guides Chapter in a final report (see Task 7) Task 6: Home Energy Reports Advising Apex Analytics will advise Utilities on a time and materials basis as needed to develop defensible program savings estimates or methodologies in the absence of a program-wide control group for Home Energy Reports. This may include establishing control and experimental groups for message testing. Apex Analytics will provide engineering review of Utilities’ assumptions as it moves forward with the HER program. Deliverables To be determined based on Utilities’ needs and requests Task 7: Project Management and Reporting This task includes both regular reporting on evaluation status and reporting of evaluation findings once the research is complete. Status Updates To ensure that evaluation findings meet Utilities’ needs and address any questions or concerns as the evaluation is ongoing, the evaluation team will maintain regular contact with Utilities through monthly status memos/emails and project management meetings. Monthly memo/email status reporting: At the beginning of each month, the evaluation team will provide Utilities with a memo that describes activities undertaken in the previous period. Monthly project management meetings: Monthly, throughout the project duration, the evaluation team’s project manager will meet (by phone or webinar) with Utilities’ evaluation manager. These meetings will address evaluation progress, answer Utilities’ questions, and seek Utilities’ feedback and direction. As necessary, other members of the evaluation team may join these meetings to discuss specific evaluation tasks. Evaluation Results We will provide two final reports: one for code compliance and a second that combines findings from all other programs. Project reporting will present in graphic, tabular, and narrative form the essence of the evaluation research, findings, conclusions and recommendations. The evaluation team will submit a DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-0334A671-F071-1396-4EAB-44AD-A4FA-BEA4-E962075EDEA0 A550C87F6AD3 draft report for Utilities staff to review and provide comments. The evaluation team will then submit a final report that addresses Utilities staff comments. Deliverables Monthly status updates Draft and final written reports Schedule of Milestones and Deliverables Table 1: Preliminary Schedule Task Activity, Milestone, Deliverable Weeks from Anticipated Completion N/A Contract Signed Contract 0 Week of: 4/30/2018 1 Kickoff Discussions Complete 3 5/21/2018 2 Code review complete 4 5/28/2018 2 Code compliance evaluation sample selected 5 6/4/2018 5 Draft IDAP consultant IDI guide* 5 6/4/2018 2 Draft code official IDI guide 6 6/11/2018 4 Draft solar participant survey guide 6 6/11/2018 2 Code compliance project data received 6 6/11/2018 3 Draft Peak Partners participant survey guide 7 6/18/2018 5 Final IDAP consultant IDI guide 8 6/25/2018 3 Draft MDU property manager IDI guide 9 7/2/2018 2 Final code official IDI guide 9 7/2/2018 4 Final solar participant survey guide 9 7/2/2018 3 Final Peak Partners participant survey guide 10 7/9/2018 5 IDAP Consultant IDIs complete 10 7/9/2018 2 Draft code compliance builder IDI guide 11 7/16/2018 4 Launch solar participant survey 11 7/16/2018 5 Draft IDAP participant IDI guide 11 7/16/2018 2 Code official interviews complete 12 7/23/2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-0334A671-F071-1396-4EAB-44AD-A4FA-BEA4-E962075EDEA0 A550C87F6AD3 2 Code compliance desk review complete 12 7/23/2018 3 Launch Peak Partners participant survey 12 7/23/2018 3 Final MDU prop. mgr. IDI guide 12 7/23/2018 2 Code compliance desk review complete 12 7/23/2018 2 Code compliance site verifications complete 14 8/6/2018 3 MDU prop. mgr IDIs complete 14 8/6/2018 4 Close solar participant survey 14 8/6/2018 5 Final participant IDI guide 14 8/6/2018 2 Code compliance builder IDIs complete 15 8/13/2018 3 Close Peak Partners participant survey 15 8/13/2018 5 IDAP participant IDIs complete 18 9/3/2018 2 Code compliance energy modeling complete 20 9/17/2018 2 Energy code compliance rate calculations complete 22 10/1/2018 2 Energy impact of code non-compliance estimates complete 25 10/22/2018 7 Draft report 28 11/12/2018 7 Final report 32 02/28/2019 * IDI stands for in-depth interview. Because in-depth interviews typically do not require programming into online survey software, we assume IDI data collection will begin as soon as interview guides are final. DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-0334A671-F071-1396-4EAB-44AD-A4FA-BEA4-E962075EDEA0 A550C87F6AD3 ATTACHMENT B WORK ORDER COST DETAIL Budget Table 3 provides the budget. Apex Analytics’ level of effort is time and materials, on request, hours to be determined but total not to exceed $10,000. The table uses a hypothetical distribution of hours by staff that totals $10,000. Table 2: Estimated Budget Hours / Cost Per Task Category Rate/ Hour Task 0: Planning To Date Task 1: Initiation & Planning Task 2: Code Compliance Task 3: Peak Partners Task 4: Solar Task 5 IDAP Task 6 HER Advising Task 7: Mgmt & Reporting Total Hours Total Cost Research Into Action Hours Executive Consultant $225 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 15 $3,375 Sr. Consultant 1 $144 25 12 20 33 16 22 70 198 $28,494 Consultant 3 $133 16 50 22 20 108 $14,364 Consultant 2 $118 90 44 24 80 33 271 $31,978 Consultant 1/Data Collection Assoc. $107 52 46 4 102 $10,914 Mesa Apex Analytics Point Energy Subcontractor Hours Principal $190 2 95 24 121 $22,990 Sr. Engineer $150 10 6 199 49.5 264 $39,563 Principal $225 3 2 16 21 $4,753 Project Manager $160 9 6 33 48 $7,600 Lead Analyst $120 10 10 $1,200 Subcontracting Hours/Task 22 16 294 0 0 0 59 74 463 Total Subcontracting Cost/ Task $3,606 $2,648 $47,838 $10,000 $11,959 $76,051 Other Direct Costs Travel: Research Into Action $750 $750 $1,500 Travel: Mesa Point Energy Travel: Apex Analytics Other ODC by Task G&A Subcontractors @ 1.25% $45 $33 $598 $125 $149 $951 Total Costs PROJECT TOTAL $7,683 $7,737 $62,386 $22,383 $13,659 $13,058 $10,125 $31,196 $0 $168,227 Utilities Work Order Form Official Purchasing Form Last updated 10/2017 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-0334A671-F071-1396-4EAB-44AD-A4FA-BEA4-E962075EDEA0 A550C87F6AD3 ATTACHMENT C CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE Utilities Work Order Form Official Purchasing Form Last updated 10/2017 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-0334A671-F071-1396-4EAB-44AD-A4FA-BEA4-E962075EDEA0 A550C87F6AD3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FBD823A-4220-4DAE-BAF1-DCD7CEA1A1A8 NAP CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE R001 DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) 9/14/2017 THIS CERTIFICATEIS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER NUTMEG INS AGENCY INC/50 PLUS/PHS 250866 P: F:(888) 443-6112 PO BOX 29611 CHARLOTTE NC 28229 CONTACT NAME: PHONE (A/C, No, Ext): FAX (A/C, No): (888) 443-6112 E-MAIL ADDRESS: INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# INSURER A : Sentinel Ins Co LTD 11000 INSURED RESEARCH INTO ACTION INC. 3934 NE M L KING BLVD STE 300 PORTLAND OR 97212 INSURER B : Trumbull Ins Co 27120 INSURER C : INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADD L SUB R POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF (MM/DD/YYYY) POLICY EXP (MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS A COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 76 SBW IR8288 09/15/2017 09/15/2018 EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 CLAIMS-MADE X OCCUR DAMAGE TO RENTED PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $1,000,000 X General Liab X MED EXP (Any one person) $10,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $1,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $2,000,000 POLICY PRO- X LOC JECT OTHER: PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $2,000,000 $ A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY 76 SBW IR8288 09/15/2017 09/15/2018 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) $1,000,000 ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ X OWNED AUTOS ONLY HIRED AUTOS ONLY X SCHEDULED AUTOS NON-OWNED AUTOS ONLY X BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $ $ A X UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB X OCCUR CLAIMS-MADE 76 SBW IR8288 09/15/2017 09/15/2018 EACH OCCURRENCE $5,000,000 AGGREGATE $5,000,000 DED X RETENTION $ 10,000 $ B WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE Y/N OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? (Mandatory in NH) If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below N/ A 76 WBG ZR5904 09/23/2017 09/23/2018 X PER STATUTE OTH- ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $1,000,000 E.L. DISEASE- EA EMPLOYEE $1,000,000 E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $1,000,000 A Professional Liability Coverage 76 SBW IR8288 09/15/2017 09/15/2018 Each Claim $2,000,000 Aggregate $2,000,000 Deductible $10,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) Those usual to the Insured's Operations. Certificate holder is an additional insured per the Business Liability Coverage Form SS0008 attached to this policy. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION City of Fort Collins Purchasing Department PO BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE © 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2016/03) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-0334A671-F071-1396-4EAB-44AD-A4FA-BEA4-E962075EDEA0 A550C87F6AD3 Support/Technical Editor $75 8 8 $600 Hours per Task 27 30 112 180 111 104 0 138 702 Labor cost per Task $4,032 $4,306 $13,950 $22,383 $13,659 $13,058 $0 $18,337 $89,725 Utilities Work Order Form Official Purchasing Form Last updated 10/2017 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6998E487-0334A671-F071-1396-4EAB-44AD-A4FA-BEA4-E962075EDEA0 A550C87F6AD3