2016-02-23_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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