2016-03-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

713 Member Cihacek responded that while "liquidated damages" was a different term, 714 from his read of the previous month's meeting minutes, the numbers were 715 justifiable and he was fine with them as indicated in those minutes. 716 717 Member Wozniak suggested referencing Section 8 (page 30) and "payment in 718 damages" versus "penalty" as previously discussed. 719 720 On page 36, discussing failures, Chair Stenlund noted Item g. specific to clean-up 721 of spilled materials by the contractor within six hours or verbal or written 722 notification. Chair Stenlund noted that a lot could pen in six hours, and 723 suggested that language be changed to "Immediate Clean-up" and also requiring 724 that the contractor self-report the spill to the state duty officer, depending on the 725 amount and type of spill. In the case of a truck breakdown, for example, Chair 726 Stenlund noted that materials were not always picked up before those rich 727 nutrients ended up in the storm sewer system. Chair Stenlund suggested that 728 some incentive should be in place et the spill cleaned up ASAP without 729 direction from city staff being requ d. Chair Stenlund also no6d the need for 730 the contractor to clearly identify what they were carrying in their spill kits. Chair 731 Stenlund suggested that any additional costs incurred by the city for discharge of 732 materials (e.g. cleaning out or jetting the sewer system) be applied as an 733 additional cost to the contractor, thereby revising the language to $250 for each 734 incident, PLUS any additional costs incurred by the city. 735 736 Mr. Culver expressed his concern in the subjective interpretation of "immediate;" 737 and suggested instead language to rea "...immediately or no later than six hours 738 after the incident occurs. 739 740 Evaluation Criteria and Weighting 741 Chair Stenlund asked if there were any individual concerns of the PWETC with 742 this evaluation as defined. Chair Stenlund advised that he was fine with the 743 scoring as currently defined in the draft RFP. 744 745 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Johnson referred to the first three bullets 746 on page 4 identifying "community values." 747 748 Chair Stenind noted that they were further defined in the packet under 749 community values; and each vendor was asked to provide information as to how 750 their proposal met them. 751 752 Member Cihacek stated that his concern was with transparency for the vendor, 753 since the value system was unclear or the vendor may not understand the value. 754 Member Cihacek proposed changing the weighting as follows: 755 • Price: 40% 756 • Past Performance: 15% 757 • Value Added Plan: 15% 758 Page 17 of 20