Laserfiche WebLink
759 Member Cihacek questioned why the Interview wasn't scored was included; with <br />760 Mr. Culver responding that it didn't provide a separate score for the interview, but <br />761 allowed the interview panel to tweak some scores based on the answers of <br />762 vendors during the interview. Member Cihacek opined that it looked like two <br />763 different scores to him and suggested removing it entirely or somehow noting that <br />764 an outcome of the interviews may result in scoring being adjusted; allowing <br />765 vendors to clarify or modify their proposals. <br />766 <br />767 Member Seigler proposed that the price be weighted at 50% rather than 40%, <br />768 opining that it was at least as important if not more so than the other components. <br />769 Aw <br />770 Mr. Culver recognized Member Seigler's perspective and advised that he would <br />771 recommend it to the City Council. As with all other Best Value Processes to -date, <br />772 Mr. Culver noted that 40% was the typical weighting for price, remaining the <br />773 highest factor, but less than half. Mr. Culver clarified that the fear was if the price <br />774 was weighted at half or more of the criteria, other categories would have even less <br />775 weight in this optional bidding process and not recognize the value added of a <br />776 particular contractor beyond that price. <br />777 <br />4'4% <br />778 Regarding whether the 'ETC or a member o e public should be involved in <br />779 the panel process, Member Wozniak admitted he was torn. While considering <br />780 that city policies were in place guiding the process and precedents as well in <br />781 place, Member oz k admitted he was compelled by Member Cihacek's <br />782 suggestion that i would engage a public perspective in the decision-making <br />783 process. <br />784 C I& Wr -4w <br />785 Member Cihacek noted that even as a non-voting member of the panel, it would <br />786 allow their input and serve as an education piece for the public as well as enhance <br />787 trans ency. Whether as a formal or non -formal vote, Member Cihacek stated <br />788 that he waspy with staff or the City Council further evaluating that option. <br />789 <br />790 Member Seigler spoke ins of the PWETC suggested that a better option <br />791 would be for the full PWET e involved through every part of the review <br />792 process to serve transparency purposes. <br />793 <br />794 Member Wozniak noted that the PWETC would eventually be evaluating and <br />795 making a recommendation on the best proposal. <br />796 <br />797 Chair Stenlund asked how the PWETC would have accountability in order to ask <br />798 good questions, through documentation received from staff, or transparency in <br />799 that interview discussion. Chair Stenlund opined that it was important for the <br />800 PWETC to understand the thought and scoring process, having any deeper <br />801 conversation on the scoring outcome provided an added and dramatic complexity <br />802 to the process. <br />803 <br />Page 18 of 20 <br />