Local contractor H.E. Newman pitches lower-cost full-service HVAC plan and 'Purple Swift' overlay to Ohio County Schools

Representatives from H.E. Newman Company told the Ohio County Board of Education on June 8 that their full-service HVAC agreement would deliver the same coverage the district has under its Siemens contract at a substantially lower cost.

Rodney, identified in the meeting packet as representing H.E. Newman Company and introduced by the board, said the company prepared a side-by-side “apples for apples” comparison and projected a 10‑year run of about $6.4 million under Newman versus about $9.2 million under Siemens. "We believe we'll be able to save the county over a 10 year projection an average of $280,000 a year," he said. The presentation listed annual increases of about 3.9% for Newman and 5.3–5.4% for Siemens as part of that calculation.

The company said it would also offer a migration approach using a software product called Purple Swift. Jeff Shepherd, introduced in the presentation as the company’s vice president of commercial service, told the board that the overlay would be a one‑time charge of $189,000 and that the vendor’s sister software firm would run the system in parallel for roughly 30 days before switching to the new front‑end. "We would run parallel for those 30 days... At the end of the 30 days, we'd flip the switch," Shepherd said.

Newman representatives described the migration as non‑disruptive to building operation; they said existing Siemens controllers could remain in place until failure and that on‑site service response would be local and priced at a lower labor rate. Rodney said Newman’s billed service rate would be about $116 an hour versus $220 an hour for Siemens; the package Newman proposed included a block of build‑out hours Siemens had priced into its offer.

Board members and staff asked detailed operational questions about filters, warranty coverage and response time; Rodney and Shepherd said filters are not included in the proposed agreement but offered to pass through company pricing with no markup. They also said their team performs scheduled preventive maintenance and offered a 30‑day termination clause if performance was unsatisfactory.

The presentation included examples of other public‑sector work the company has done and referenced a 30–45 day timeline to complete the overlay once an agreement is signed. The board did not vote on the proposal that night; Mr. Jones said the district would evaluate the packet, discuss procurement timelines with staff and revisit the matter at the next meeting.

The presentation materials provided price comparisons and scope lists; the board solicited follow‑up information and suggested a possible special session or bid extension to allow more due diligence.

Next steps: the board agreed to review the packet and return the item to a future meeting for further discussion of procurement process and any potential workshop with the vendor.