The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2009-10-13 Minutes0 ,r"OF 9 e§.- j ~e 2 f 3x U F~c i ~~ 9r D p ~y ~ y= ~. .. ~ ~ /// \\\~` // // ~ ~ / 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ / I I ! ! 1 I I I I ! 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 \ \ \ ~ ~ ~~ Town Of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 (508) 896-3701 ext. 133 FAX (508) 896-8089 Date Approved with modifications: November 23, 2009; All Aye; Vote 7-0-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 4:30 P.M. Brewster Town Office Building Comprehensive Water Planning Committee Pat Hughes convened the Comprehensive Water Planning Committee meeting at 4:35 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members Joanne Hughes, Dave Michniewicz, Dave Bennett and Jane Johnson. Also Present: Sue Leven, Jim Gallagher, Peter Johnson and Chris Miller. 1. Review minutes: August 24 and September 14, 2009 August 24, 2009: no changes J. Hughes: Motioned to approve as written. Seconded by Michniewicz. Vote: All Aye September 14, 2009: a minor modification was made Michniewicz: Motioned to approve with modifications. Seconded by J. Hughes. Vote: All Aye. 2. Tri-Town facility follow-up: A brief discussion occurred regarding the memo sent to Board of Selectmen. P. Hughes: Questioned whether any additional information had been sent to Orleans? Leven: had not seen anything but would check with C. Sumner. Later in the meeting Mr. Sumner arrived and informed the committee that no additional information had been submitted. The Board of Selectmen was waiting until the completion of Town Meeting. 3. Review and discuss Integrated Water Resource Management Plan proposals: It was noted that Dave Michniewicz was heading this process. Michniewicz: lead the discussion -wanted to know if everyone had a chance to review the proposals and rank. D. Bennett, E. Taylor had submitted their rankings. Mr. Michniewicz encouraged the sub-committee to finish reviewing the proposals, complete the rankings and submit their findings to Ms Leven. 10-13-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 1 of4 One of the areas that is being ranked was number of years a person had been with the firm. It was suggested to strike that ranking due to the inability for everyone to rank equally. However, after further review it was agreed that the committee would have to do their best because it was included in the RFP. J. Hughes: had a difficult time differentiating and ranking the water management vs. comprehensive waste water management plans especially for a smaller town like Brewster. Leven: Further discussed the ranking sheet and provided some of the information she had learned while reading through the proposals. Bennett: The review process is somewhat a qualitative feel. He went through and gave all proposals a quick read and then went back and ranked. He suggested that everyone rank all categories or leave that group blank across the board that way it would be given an equal weight. What is the timeframe? Leven: Would like to be in a position within a week or two to be able to get everyone in for the interviews. Bennett: Would everyone be able to get through the proposals by the end of the week? Leven: Suggested that the next meeting be at the end of the week. Otherwise it would have to be after Monday due to Town Meeting. P. Hughes: Some proposals provide additional analysis information -how is that taken into consideration during the ranking process? Leven: The information should fall into one of the groupings. Also, don't forget you would be able to uncover some feedback during the interview process. P. Hughes: Staffing hours -some proposals provided detailed hours and how does that affect the overall review? For example, a staff may only be allocated based on a certain number of hours. P. Hughes may want to have more time from certain staff. Leven: Again, the sub-committee can ask those types of questions during the interview process. Michniewicz: Just so the committee members know when an estimate is prepared the consultants allocate only a certain number of hours for the project. J. Hughes: What about litigation? How is that taken into consideration for a consultant that may have a large number of employees and has 6 pending cases and where a consultant has a smaller number of employees but also has 6 pending cases? Leven: Each member would be bringing a different perspective to the review process. Bennett: In addition, that is where we need to decide how important certain elements are to each proposal. Jane Johnson: Was looking at the more specific detailed information that was required in the RFP (i.e. a certificate missing, appropriate signatures not given). She could not review based on the science. 10-13-09 www.TOWN.BREWST~R.MA.US Page 2 of4 Leven: Would like to discuss with Charlie -how much leeway the committee had in relation to missing information. Bennett: If information was missing then would the proposal have to be thrown out? Johnson: Would let Sue know the proposals that had missing information. Leven: Highlighted in the pre-bid process the importance of public relations to the whole process. That was probably why many of the consultants spent a significant portion of their proposal addressing that issue. It was also advertised that the Town had $140,000 available for this phase with the possibility of additional funds appropriated at Town Meeting. Jane Johnson left at 5:20 - Ms. Leven pointed out that a quorum was not longer present and therefore the committee was unable to make any further motions. Leven: Explained the procurement process. The committee needs to be ready to select the top consultants before you open the estimates. The committee needs to determine the most qualified consultant and the price should be second. She was not sure has to how much flexibility you have. Lucier: Wanted to be sure that references would be checked. Ms. Leven said that would be handled once they narrowed the number of proposals down. Charlie Sumner, Town Administrator: Entered at 5:25 pm. Sumner: The ranking system is not supposed to be a numerical system. It should be advantageous, not advantageous etc. Also you should be looking to find the plan that best fits the needs of the Town? The selection process needs to be written up with notes relating to each proposal. It all needs to be documented in writing why or why not for each proposal. You then would have narrowed the field of proposals down and have those people in for an interview. The interview process occurs which should give your top proposals. At that point you then have the opportunity to see the bids. C. Sumner would open the estimates together with the Committee and in Public. There can be some negotiations if an estimate is way out of line -perhaps one consultant would change a scope of work that would make the estimate come in line. There is not a requirement to take the lowest bid for this RFP. Leven: What happens if a proposal is missing something? Sumner: Missing a certificate or a minor correction can be added. The committee has a lot of freedom because you are trying to find the best company for the Town. Sumner really leaves this decision process up to the committee but would be involved with the contract negotiations. Any amendments to the contract would have to be signed off by Sumner and Souve. Leven: Noted that she would re-rank the review sheet so that the numbers would turn into groupings (advantageous, not advantageous etc). Asked if the interview process would be at a public meeting? Sumner: Thought the process should be public and posted. The companies could be asked to wait outside during each interview. Bennett: Litigation? Is it an incomplete application or just missing information? 10-13-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 3 of4 P. Hughes: in the RFP #6 asks about litigation -how do you rank that company? Leven: For example, company A has 20,000 employees with 6 litigations, company B has 25 employees with 6 litigations; others refused to answer -how is that ranked? Sumner: If it was part of the RFP then it needs to be taken into a consideration. But to be on the safe side Ms. Leven should run it by town counsel. Leven: Would revise the form and would send out an email to town counsel. The group needs to determine the next meeting time. Bennett: Step 1: A completion review; Step 2: Ranking process - a tabulation of the ranking, a brief discussion and then determine who will be invited back for an interview. Step 3: the Interview process -need to have all 6sub-committee members together. Sumner: If you are going to be involved in the rankings then you need to be involved in the interview. Leven: Next meeting: Tuesday, October 20th at 4 pm -Also, please look at your schedules for the week of the 26th and let her know if a day doesn't work. J. Hughes: Motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Bennett. All Aye. miffed, Sci/Administrative Clerk ,~ -, 10-13-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 4 of4