2010-11-30_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 Member Von De Linde thanked Member Manzara for her input in the process. 3 4 Ms. Lewis with BSWR confirmed that no formal action (on the report) was required by BWSR. 5 6 The draft 2009 Annual Report, as amended through tonight's discussion, was declared approved 7 by consensus by Chair Ferrington. 8 9 Review of Proposed Scoring Sheet/Review and Evaluation Procedure 10 Chair Ferrington reviewed the proposed process for review, evaluation and ranking of the firms 11 submitting proposals for the Third Generation Ten -Year Watershed management Plan as agreed 12 upon at the August GLWMO meeting. Chair Ferrington and Member Manzara both indicated 13 that they had received personal contact about the RFP from several of the firms, both by phone 14 and in person. 15 16 Chair Ferrington distributed the proposal scoring sheet, and a sheet with the scores provided by 17 Board members (without names of Board members attached) to serve as a starting point for 18 tonight's discussion. Chair Ferrington noted that rankings of individual members could be 19 revised tonight if they desired; and thanked members for taking time for review and ranking; and 20 their timeliness of responses to facilitate the review process. 21 22 Discussion of proposals submitted for development of 3rd Generation 10 -year Watershed 23 Management Plan 24 After review of the initial (anonymous) scores, Member Manzara suggested that, in an effort to 25 save time, the Board focus on the Barr and EOR firms as the highest ranked firms, and noted that 26 the proposals from Houston and WSB received significantly lower rankings. 27 28 Members Eckman and Von De Linde concurred with Member Manzara's suggestion, following a 29 brief discussion of the merits of those firms. 30 31 Member Westerberg expressed his appreciation of several points included in the proposals from 32 Houston and /or WSB, such as creation of a written stakeholder involvement agreement, and 33 decisions on whether to protect, maintain or restore areas. With those caveats, however, Member 34 Westerberg, concurred with other Board members to focus on the two highest ranking firms. 35 36 Member Manzara, with concurrence of other members, suggested that some of the ideas brought 37 forward in all proposals be incorporated in framing a long -range work plan. 38 39 By consensus, the firms of Houston and WSB were removed from discussion at this point. 40 41 Members proceeded to review and compare the strengths of the proposals by EOR and Barr, 42 including their individual themes for developing useful information, monitoring data; clarity of 43 their visions compared to and recognizing the role and goals of the GLWMO; short-term versus 44 long -term realism of goals; familiarity of the firms with the work of the GLWMO and respective 45 cities, with their familiarity of the Second Generation Plan and Lake Owasso User Survey; and 46 each firm's responses to the technological and priority issues set out in the RFP.