Laserfiche WebLink
Member Cihacek questioned why the Interview wasn't scored was included; with <br /> Mr. Culver responding that it didn't provide a separate score for the interview, but <br /> allowed the interview panel to tweak some scores based on the answers of <br /> vendors during the interview. Member Cihacek opined that it looked like two <br /> different scores to him and suggested removing it entirely or somehow noting that <br /> an outcome of the interviews may result in scoring being adjusted; allowing <br /> vendors to clarify or modify their proposals. <br /> Member Seigler proposed that the price be weighted at 50%rather than 40%, <br /> opining that it was at least as important if not more so than the other components. <br /> Mr. Culver recognized Member Seigler's perspective and advised that he would <br /> recommend it to the City Council. As with all other Best Value Processes to-date, <br /> Mr. Culver noted that 40% was the typical weighting for price, remaining the <br /> highest factor, but less than half. Mr. Culver clarified that the fear was if the price <br /> was weighted at half or more of the criteria, other categories would have even less <br /> weight in this optional bidding process and not recognize the value added of a <br /> particular contractor beyond that price. <br /> Regarding whether the PWETC or a member of the public should be involved in <br /> the panel process, Member Wozniak admitted he was torn. While considering <br /> that city policies were in place guiding the process and precedents as well in <br /> place, Member Wozniak admitted he was compelled by Member Cihacek's <br /> suggestion that it would engage a public perspective in the decision-making <br /> process. <br /> Member Cihacek noted that even as a non-voting member of the panel, it would <br /> allow their input and serve as an education piece for the public as well as enhance <br /> transparency. Whether as a formal or non-formal vote, Member Cihacek stated <br /> that he was happy with staff or the City Council further evaluating that option. <br /> Member Seigler spoke in support of the PWETC suggested that a better option <br /> would be for the full PWETC to be involved through every part of the review <br /> process to serve transparency purposes. <br /> Member Wozniak noted that the PWETC would eventually be evaluating and <br /> making a recommendation on the best proposal. <br /> Chair Stenlund asked how the PWETC would have accountability in order to ask <br /> good questions, through documentation received from staff, or transparency in <br /> that interview discussion. Chair Stenlund opined that it was important for the <br /> PWETC to understand the thought and scoring process, having any deeper <br /> conversation on the scoring outcome provided an added and dramatic complexity <br /> to the process. <br /> Page 18 of 20 <br />