From: Michael Kennedy
Sent: Mon, May 6, 2013 6:28 pm
Subject: UC2B Phase 2.5
Dear Council Members,
It has come to our understanding that Power Up has endured a very one sided view point of the UC2B phase 2 project. In an effort to reflect a 2 sided story and attempt to control the narrative we have provided the following factual points before you make your vote tomorrow on the UC2B phase 2.5 project. We believe the price is absorbent and if given the opportunity we will prepare a proposal that you will receive that will give you an option to work with Power Up for significant savings and no loss of quality. Despite what you may believe, that you have to rush this proposal through, to make the schedule for 450 installs right away to make a September close out. I will tell you that if we receive all of the scheduled customers from the start we can make all of these installs within 45 days with breathing room.
1. Power Up Electrical was never consulted by the City or UC2B to discuss extending our Contract to account for new subscribers in the event that the Federal Grant was extended.
a. This is a violation of Change Order #5 which contains the clause that the “Parties will meet to discuss the extension of time of the agreement to deal with installs turned over to Power Up to be accomplished after January 31, 2013….”
b. If one would argue that this does not say future installs, then they can’t have it both ways as the report attached to the proposed Board Bill and the accompanied documentation states that there are 450 installs that “Power Up was not able to commit to completion of the these late subscriptions….” This is a direct quote from the Board Bill. This is NOT TRUE. The fact is that Power Up was never asked or even attempted to be negotiated with in spite of Power Up’s 91.4% customer approval rating. Not only does Power Up stand fully prepared to make a firm commitment to accomplish these installs but at a firm cost of 30% less than Western’s proposal using Power Up’s own crews and subcontractors approved by the City.
2. Power Up’s contract extension had nothing to do with Power Up’s performance and had everything to do with the failure to sign up subscribers. Power Up lost money due to the lack of installs because the proposal was based on nearly 2,700 installs anticipated.
3. How does the City justify paying Western $1,875 per residential install when Power Up was doing it for $310 per install? Why was Power Up not consulted as noted above particularly given the HUGE difference in pricing between Western and Power Up? Power Up could quadruple its price and still be 30% less than Western.
4. How does the City justify paying $20,000 per anchor site install (times 30 each by the way) when Power Up was doing it for less than $2,500 per. ??
5. How does the City justify paying Western $45/hour for administrative time entering information into Sales Force in addition to Western’s exorbitant unit pricing? Power Up was not allowed to charge the City any additional cost for developing its own CRM System when the City/UC2B had no process or system in place until November 2012? Keep in mind, Power Up was issued a Notice to Proceed in June and never had its first customers until late August. Once the City/UC2B Sales Force system was finally put in place, Power Up went through the extra effort of moving all of the previous data into the new system and then used Sales Force for all remaining installs. Not only did Power Up complete all of this double entry and extra work, the City had the gall to hold up Power Up pay requests until this work was complete!
a. As much as the City wanted Power Up to terminate Volo’s contract, we explained that because the City had no CRM system, all of the project data was within the Volo system that we developed and that we needed to carefully manage this to insure that the data was transferred. Terminating Volo would have been a total disaster. We managed through any and all of these issues, protecting the City and UC2B, while completing all of the work and still achieving a 91.4% customer approval rating.
b. Had Power Up terminated Volo and Southern Belle, it would have been a political and technical disaster. All because Power Up attempted to mentor a local firm and because the City/UC2B had no customer management system in place.
6. How does the City justify paying $100 per reschedule to Western in addition to their exorbitant unit prices? Power Up received no compensation for its large amount of rescheduling customers at no fault of Power Up.
7. How does the City justify paying $290 per customer “no shows” in addition to Western’s exorbitant unit prices? Power Up received no compensation for its large amount of “no shows”.
8. How does the City justify paying $1.6 million to Western for 450 residential installs and 30 Anchor installs when Power Up completed just under 1000 installs for $1.4 million?
9. Power Up completed its last scheduled install on January 24th and still has never received Final Payment. Power Up has never received a Punch List as called for in the contract.
10. Power Up has, without delay, responded immediately to any and all service calls received since the last install. Even the engineering directives issued by Paul Duke like clockwork on Fridayafternoons between 3 and 5 pm. To date, there are ZERO unresolved issues or open tickets. (In spite of the fact that Power Up was routinely not paid for 60 to 90 days throughout the course of the project and still awaits payment on its March 21st invoice.)
11. Power Up stayed the course even after Mr. Paul Duke called our Project Manager a blanking blanksucker. This is documented with witnesses. Clearly a reason that certain people likely want to move Power Up along.
12. The original RFP anticipated 2,700 installs. Power Up can only install what it is released to install. The final number was just under 1,000. Power Up suffered significant financial hardship given that its overhead costs were spread into the unit cost per install as dictated by the bidding documents. The 1,700 less installs would be well beyond the realm of less than reasonably anticipated. Signing up customers was 100% the responsibility of the Owner. Power should be given the opportunity for equitable adjustment given these extraordinary circumstances at no fault of Power Up – especially given the fact that the City did not honor Change Order 5 and give Power Up an opportunity to discuss the future installs. These future installs are what should have been original Power Up installs that did not get signed up. Instead the City wants to hire Western and pay them 5 to 6 times more at Power Up’s expense???
13. There is definitely a narrative that has been established regarding Power Up whereby Power Up has had no opportunity to set the record straight. The misinformation and mischaracterizations out there are alarming and inflammatory to say the least.
14. There is no justification for paying all of the above. In as much as certain people have chosen to smear Power Up, the fact is that Power Up got the job done, has no outstanding tickets, achieved a 91.4% customer approval rating, bank-rolled the project, has no claims from subcontractors, and doubled its warranty. All of this while the City/UC2B developed their systems and processes on the fly and failed to sign up more than 60% of the originally intended subscribers. Who failed?
For your sincere consideration,