Committee tightens RFP financial requirements: 3% escalation cap, payback and NPV details required

Committee members pressed for clearer financial disclosures from bidders, adding specific analysis requirements to the RFP and limiting escalation assumptions.

Speaker5 summarized the added expectations: estimated annual cost savings, a simple payback period, net-present-value assumptions and "annual escalation rate of no more than 3%" so proposers cannot overstate future savings. Members emphasized these calculations should cover the expected useful life of the battery when the proposal includes energy storage.

Members also discussed evaluation criteria: qualifications and experience, technical approach, cost and value (including financial benefits to the town), schedule, equipment quality and past performance. The group noted that while the town's procurement rules allow technical/ professional services to be evaluated on more than lowest cost, for this project payback and cost-effectiveness will likely drive selection unless a higher-priced option clearly demonstrates better long-term value.

The committee agreed to ask proposers to explicitly describe how savings are derived so the town can compare financial scenarios and to consider outside technical review for the most technical submissions.