RE: Palmetto Brick: Inman vs Hannah
Inbox
| Mark Cann <mark.cann@hannahsolar.com> | Jul 28, 2016, 1:08 PM |  | |
| to me, Lynne, Jeff |
Matt, thanks for getting the information. See my responses below.
From: Matt Warren [mailto:matthewtwarren3@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 12:11 PM
To: Mark Cann
Cc: Lynne & Kirby Oblachinski; Jeff Keeney
Subject: Palmetto Brick: Inman vs Hannah
From Andy
These are the main reasons for going with Inman.
1.) Matt initially identified our roof as a standing seam and then was properly identified by Inman as a corrugated roof.
2.) Matt initially gave the wrong kilowatt value (.08 versus .051)
3.) Inman was the first to off the idea to offset the higher cost meters
4.) Inman was the first to push for ground mounted panels due to the fact that they thought there would be leakage under a best case scenario.
5.) Inman’s cost included the turn key lad pre for ground mount including the fence. Hannah said the fence would be an extra cost.
6.) The owner of Inman Solar came to visit along with the rep which showed a lot of backing.
Hope that helps.
Andy Rogers, Vice-President
Please teach us how you got the $.051 so we don’t make that error again. Was it somewhere on their bill or a formula? The $.08 that I was told originally ended up having a demand charge in it. Solar PV cannot touch demand charges. Once the demand charge was removed, they pay $.051. Good lesson moving forward when breaking down customers power bills. Commercial is completely different that residential and demand charges (if the customer has them) need to be removed each time.
Was it really about running the wire 5000 feet? I don’t see that mentioned in Andy’s critique. Looks like they listened to the customers concerns (leaking roof, fencing, saving money by offsetting highest value meter, etc) and didn’t make any errors in the presentation either. I do remember we probably sent them 5 or 6 versions of the proposal. I was told by Kevin that Inman said they could connect to the other meter from the ground mount. There was never any distances discussed on the call yesterday. We never said we couldn’t make that connection. Greg and I also asked about the ground mount option but apparently Inman beat us to it. By my measurements, depending on the path that would have to be taken, the electrical run could be anywhere from 2500- 4000ft. There are so many obstacles that would have to be worked around. I do not have a cost for this. We have never run over 1000ft. and don’t like to go over 500. I give Inman credit on targeting the highest value meter and I will take responsibility for not addressing that earlier in the proposal process.
Does Pete, as the owner, go to any high value sales presentations? I would love to take him to some like Inman did on this one. Pete will attend if needed.
What is Hannah’s fencing and wire running (for a MW) price per foot. This needs to be added as a note to our proposals. Pricing for wire runs varies from job to job. For example, a 400Ft run will require a different wire size than a 50ft run. Fencing varies as well because we will use a local fencing contractor. A good starting point for a 6ft fence for a MW is around $15/linear ft. There are approximately 2000 linear ft of fence needed. I would use $35,000 to be safe for fence for MW in future.
We are all trying to debrief from this one and analyze each step so that we hopefully don’t lose again. This one stung….a lot. I accept full responsibility and hope to learn going forward. Rule number 1) The person with the initial contact will be at every meeting and be the one talking directly to the client….each time. The minute that Jeff didn’t go to a meeting, it took the local friendship factor out of the equation. I agree with having the local contact attend each meeting. As the meetings get more technical and closer to the sell, it is ok for myself to take over the phone calls, but always including the local contact.
Thanks for helping us all improve.
Matt Warren
Re: Jeff Keeney
Inbox
| Jeff Keeney <jokeeney@gmail.com> | Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 11:55 AM | | |
| to me |
We learn from our mistakes. I think if we handle all accounts like we did chc then we will be good.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 28, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Matt Warren <matthewtwarren3@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. Tell him thanks from all of us. Learning for sure. I apologize Jeff for my part. We are still at the beginning of this gold rush and will be better. It is really nice to get his feedback.
Matt Warren, Solar Power Provider
Fwd: Jeff Keeney
Inbox
| Jeff Keeney <jokeeney@gmail.com> | Jul 28, 2016, 11:30 AM | | |
| to me, Kirby |
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Andy Rogers <arogers@palmettobrick.com>
Date: July 28, 2016 at 11:17:49 AM EDT
To: Jeff Keeney <jokeeney@gmail.com>
Subject:RE: Jeff Keeney
Sorry for the delay but my last 24 hours have been hectic. The decision to select Inman Solar was a tough one because of knowing you and due to the fact that Mark with Hannah is awesome. The fact that our initial meeting with you was with Vision Solar and then subbed to Hannah was a little confusing but not a deal breaker by any means. These are the main reasons for going with Inman.
1.) Matt initially identified our roof as a standing seam and then was properly identified by Inman as a corrugated roof.
2.) Matt initially gave the wrong kilowatt value (.08 versus .051)
3.) Inman was the first to off the idea to offset the higher cost meters
4.) Inman was the first to push for ground mounted panels due to the fact that they thought there would be leakage under a best case scenario.
5.) Inman’s cost included the turn key lad pre for ground mount including the fence. Hannah said the fence would be an extra cost.
6.) The owner of Inman Solar came to visit along with the rep which showed a lot of backing.
Hope that helps.
Andy Rogers, Vice-President
—–Original Message—–
From: Jeff Keeney [mailto:jokeeney@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 9:54 AM
To: Andy Rogers <arogers@palmettobrick.com>
Subject: Re: Jeff Keeney
Andy, I apologize if this is rude. I’m just trying to make the right decision on my new career. Any help would be appreciated.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 27, 2016, at 1:11 PM, Jeff Keeney <jokeeney@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Andy, could you help me out as a friend. I am new at this and I could use all the help I could get. Can you tell me why we lost the job. I need to know if I have chosen the wrong company. Was it price, reputation, sales pitch? I need to know for my future. Needless to say I am very disappointed in losing the job but I do appreciate the opportunity.
Thanks,
Jeff
Sent from my iPhone
Re: Palmetto brick
Inbox
| Kirby Oblachinski <kirbyoblachin@yahoo.com> | Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 10:44 AM | | |
| to me, Jeff |
We are going to learn but together WE ARE GOING TO KICK ASS STARTING TODAY!!!!
I hate to lose at anything!!!!
Kirby
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Matt Warren <matthewtwarren3@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jeff and Kirby,
>
> There was a design done by Hannah for the Groundmount for palmetto brick. I dug deeper and found that they were wanting us to bring the wiring back to the meter which was a distance of 5000 feet and not a straight shot. This is just shy of a mile long run. If we did it overhead with poles or trenched it, the wire size and expenses could have been in the $100,000 range. We think that Inman said that they would include that expense. Not sure if that was a smart decision on their part. We will find out more from them when we talk with Inman face to face. Just wanted to pass along.
>
> Hold your heads up. We will learn from this!
>
> Matt Warren
> Solar Power Provider
Fwd: Jeff Keeney
Inbox
| Jeff Keeney <jokeeney@gmail.com> | Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 1:12 PM | | |
| to me |
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jeff Keeney <jokeeney@gmail.com>
Date: July 27, 2016 at 1:11:21 PM EDT
To:arogers@palmettobrick.com
Subject:Jeff Keeney
Hey Andy, could you help me out as a friend. I am new at this and I could use all the help I could get. Can you tell me why we lost the job. I need to know if I have chosen the wrong company. Was it price, reputation, sales pitch? I need to know for my future. Needless to say I am very disappointed in losing the job but I do appreciate the opportunity.
Thanks,
Jeff
Re: Hannah Solar Final Quote
Inbox
| Jeff Keeney <jokeeney@gmail.com> | Jun 24, 2016, 10:20 AM | | |
| to me, Mark, Greg |
Was wondering how meeting went yesterday at palmetto brick?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 16, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Matt Warren <matthewtwarren3@gmail.com> wrote:
How did the call go?
Matt WarrenSolar Power Provider
On Jun 15, 2016, at 5:42 PM, Mark Cann <mark.cann@hannahsolar.com> wrote:
Great. We will talk then
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 15, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Matt Warren <matthewtwarren3@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark, looks like we are still in the ballgame. I will try to make the call tomorrow at 9am, but will be at the conference so not sure how that will go. I think it is best if just Greg and Mark handle this call.
Matt WarrenSolar Power Provider
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kevin Light <klight@palmettobrick.com>
Date: June 15, 2016 at 5:19:02 PM EDT
To: Matt Warren <matthewtwarren3@gmail.com>
Subject:Re: Hannah Solar Final Quote
Sure 9 works – just call me on my office phone – 843-320-1103.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 15, 2016, at 4:45 PM, Matt Warren <matthewtwarren3@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kevin and Andy,
Please find attached the updated figures. The project cost are now 100% offset year one. Mark would like to please set up a call with you in the morning to help walk through these numbers. Does 9am of 10am work for you?
Thank you!
Matt WarrenSolar Power Provider
Begin forwarded message:
From: Elizabeth Davis <elizabeth@hannahsolar.com>
Date: June 15, 2016 at 4:07:11 PM EDT
To: Matt Warren <matthewtwarren3@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Cann <mark.cann@hannahsolar.com>
Subject:RE: Hannah Solar Final Quote
Corrected spreadsheet attached. Shows FITC off gross sale price
Any other changes, let me know.
Elizabeth Davis
Sales Coordinator
Hannah Solar, LLC
404.805.3884<image001.png>
From: Matt Warren [mailto:matthewtwarren3@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 3:23 PM
To: Elizabeth Davis <elizabeth@hannahsolar.com>
Cc: Mark Cann <mark.cann@hannahsolar.com>
Subject: Fwd: Hannah Solar Final Quote
Would you please update the spreadsheet to show the text credits coming off of the gross sale price instead of the net sale price? Thank you
Matt Warren
Solar Power Provider
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kevin Light <klight@palmettobrick.com>
Date: June 15, 2016 at 3:17:43 PM EDT
To: “randy@lucastaxandenergy.com” <randy@lucastaxandenergy.com>, Andy Rogers <arogers@palmettobrick.com>
Cc: Mark Cann <mark.cann@hannahsolar.com>, Matt Warren <matthewtwarren3@gmail.com>, Greg Kelly <greg.kelly@hannahsolar.com>, “Jeff Keeney” <jokeeney@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Hannah Solar Final Quote
Matt and Mark,
So we need to have the spreadsheet updated since it has the credit based on the net.
Randy,
Also, another item to consider so we can make sure the financials projections work out – would the solar panels be subject to sales tax for a SC manufacturer or not subject to sales tax due to the manufacturing exemption?
Thanks,
Kevin
From: randy@lucastaxandenergy.com [mailto:randy@lucastaxandenergy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:09 PM
To: Kevin Light <klight@palmettobrick.com>; Andy Rogers <arogers@palmettobrick.com>
Cc: Mark Cann <mark.cann@hannahsolar.com>; Matt Warren <matthewtwarren3@gmail.com>; Greg Kelly <greg.kelly@hannahsolar.com>; Jeff Keeney <jokeeney@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Hannah Solar Final Quote
Kevin and Andy:
Good afternoon. As a follow up to Mark’s email reply regarding your tax question whether the Federal Renewable Energy Investment Tax Credit (REITC) should be based on the total (qualified) installed cost or installed cost net of the utility rebate, we have reviewed this issue and conclude that the 30% REITC should be based on the total cost.
Depending on your company’s accounting policy, you will likely account for the utility rebate as an income, and it is also likely that Duke Energy will report the rebate amount that was issued to Palmetto Brick to the IRS via a Form 1099 as their standard operating procedures which will also require your company to report the utility rebate as income.
With either of these two scenarios, by treating the benefit received from the utility rebate as taxable income, you will be in position to then capitalize the total installed cost on your financials and therefore the tax of the benefit received may potentially be offset by the increased REITC from claiming a 30% tax credit on the total cost incurred versus the net incurred after rebate.
Please let us know if you have any additional questions regarding the tax accounting for the utility rebate or would like to discuss further. I can be reached directly at the number below or we can schedule a call.
Kind Regards,
R
Randy M. Lucas, CPA | Principal Consultant | Lucas Tax + Energy Consulting | Ph. 704.968.5506
On 2016-06-15 11:12, Mark Cann wrote:
Kevin and Andy,
Please see our responses below. Matt will be sending an updates spreadsheet.
Thank you again.
Mark
From: Kevin Light [mailto:klight@palmettobrick.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 1:29 PM
To: Mark Cann <mark.cann@hannahsolar.com>; Andy Rogers <arogers@palmettobrick.com>
Cc: Matt Warren <matthewtwarren3@gmail.com>; Greg Kelly <greg.kelly@hannahsolar.com>; Jeff Keeney <jokeeney@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Hannah Solar Final Quote
Mark,
Can you answer the following questions? We have met with Inman Solar and we are to the point of being able to fine tune our understanding of your proposal.
1. Should the Federal tax credit be 30% of the total installed cost or the net cost after the Duke rebate? I have copied Randy Lucas on this email. Randy is the owner of Lucas Tax & Energy. He consults for us on many jobs and is very knowledgeable when it comes to questions like this and brings us credibility.
2. Based on the Duke invoices, shouldn’t the Kilowatt value be $0.051 rather than $0.080? Matt will be in touch with Kevin on this with an updated spreadsheet. Andy – this is the same thing that I just explained to you.
3. Shouldn’t there be consideration for property taxes? If you look in the expense line on the 30 year cashflow, our estimate of property taxes are in that number.
4. Shouldn’t we take into effect the tax on the Duke Energy Rebate? Yes, but Randy’s explaination will help answer this question.
5. Are the expense estimates in year 2 through year 30 the annual maintenance costs? The expense estimates take into account property tax, insurance, O&M and any meter fees from Duke Energy, which are very minimal meter fees. (around $30). We need to include some cost in year one. We will update. Most of the time, the solar can be included in the existing insurance policy on the building.
6. To clarify, inverters would need to be replaced roughly every 15 years? The inverters are warrantied for 10 years. Extended warranties can be bought and included in the upfront cost. The cost is $1200/inverter for 10 years extension on warranty. There are approximately 30 inverters on this job so that would be a cost of ~ $36,000. We put an inverter replacement in the cost at 15 years to show that if you do not buy the extended warranty, there could be a potential cost of replacement.
Let me know what you think. Please update your spreadsheet as needed based on any answers to the above questions and resend.
Thanks for your help.
Kevin
From: Mark Cann [mailto:mark.cann@hannahsolar.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 4:41 PM
To: Andy Rogers <arogers@palmettobrick.com>; Kevin Light <klight@palmettobrick.com>
Cc: Matt Warren <matthewtwarren3@gmail.com>; Greg Kelly <greg.kelly@hannahsolar.com>; Jeff Keeney <jokeeney@gmail.com>
Subject: Hannah Solar Final Quote
Andy,
Per our conversation this morning, we have adjusted our price based on some similar project adjustments that we are quoting and building in South Carolina and Georgia. We always try our best to work on the same margin for projects of this size so any savings that we come across are passed on to the customer. Panel prices for solar have come down just in the past few weeks.
We are also starting to build more and more projects in South Carolina as the utilities are releasing previously submitted applications. This is good news from a project cost standpoint because we can keep crews on the road and busy instead of re-mobilizing each project. This also allows us to save from an effeciency standpoint.
System Size: 1,260.27 KW
Hannah Quote Price: $1.67/watt.
Project Cost: $2,104,651
Hannah is very excited about the potential opportunity to work with Palmetto Brick on this project. Since solar is still fairly new to the state and this could be one of the premiere solar arrays if Palmetto Brick decides to market the project in that way. By allowing Hannah to build the project, you will get first class attention to detail and a superior finished product. This type of project is right up our alley and we are very familiar with working in this type of environment. We have installed on warehouses pretty much identical to yours with projects of very similar size.
Please do not hesitate with any questions. We look forward to hearing your response.
Mark Cann
Business Development
Hannah Solar, LLC
1311 Collier Rd.
Atlanta GA 30318
Office: 404-609-7005
Cell : 864-706-3930
www.hannahsolar.com<image003.jpg><Palmetto Brick Proposal 1.26MW (DUKE)v5.pdf>
