School board agrees to seek proposals for energy-savings performance contracting
Summary
After a presentation from vendor McClure, the Montgomery County Public Schools board agreed to start a request-for-proposals process and preliminary audits to explore an energy savings performance contract that could finance building upgrades from guaranteed utility savings.
Montgomery County Public Schools on Wednesday directed staff to begin a request-for-proposals and no‑risk preliminary scoping audits to test whether an energy savings performance contract could finance energy- and facilities-related upgrades without upfront local capital.
The board heard a 30‑minute presentation from Chrissy Sheriff, an account executive with the McClure Company, who described the model as “100% Virginia code authorized” and said it allows a school division to “upgrade your school infrastructure with an improved energy efficiency, reduce long term costs, and do so without upfront capital.” Sheriff told the board vendors guarantee projected savings and are contractually responsible to make up any shortfall: “If they don't make it, we will make it right operationally and cut you a check for the difference.”
Sheriff outlined common scopes for energy savings performance contracting (ESPC): lighting upgrades, plumbing and roof work, HVAC recommissioning or replacement, and renewable energy such as rooftop solar. She gave a sample scenario in which a $250,000‑a‑year utility savings, financed over 20 years, could function as the revenue stream that supports roughly $6 million in project funding. She also cited a case study in which Caroline County consolidated a roughly $10 million list of needs into an approximately $3 million net ask by packaging measures and adding a solar PPA.
Board members asked about next steps, risk and timing. Superintendent Dr. Bragan and staff said the next step would be issuing an RFP, selecting a vendor, and then allowing an investment‑grade audit (IGA) at no risk to the division to catalog assets, scope savings and produce a financing plan. “When we get a company that would be selected, it would begin with the investment grade audit, which, as I understand, Miss McCord, is no risk to the district at that point,” Bragan said; McCord confirmed that characterization.
Board members probed financing options, from tax‑exempt municipal leases and bonds to federal tax incentives and utility rebates. Sheriff said grants and rebate programs can be pursued alongside ESPC work and that vendors frequently assist with grant documentation and applications. She described procurement options including cooperative contracts and a Virginia Energy Department RFP/Board of Education path and estimated a typical procurement-to-construction window of roughly eight to 12 months, depending on scope.
After questions from members covering guarantees, post‑installation measurement and verification, and comparable clients (Sheriff said McClure is working with about 10 Virginia school divisions and has done more than 300 K‑12 projects statewide), the board gave informal unanimous assent to start the RFP process and preliminary scoping audits so the division can evaluate feasibility and costs.
The board did not approve a construction contract at the meeting; members requested that staff return with formal procurement documents and the investment‑grade audit results before any binding commitments.
Community and staff proponents of ESPC said the work could also provide CTE and STEM learning opportunities, internships and collaboration with students during projects.
What happens next: staff will prepare an RFP or cooperative procurement route for board review, authorize preliminary scoping audits, and return to the board with an investment‑grade audit and a recommended financing path before any project award or construction begins.
