Laserfiche WebLink
Chair Ferrington advised that through various drafts, this item first appeared as two separate <br />sections, but had been combined after review, comment and revision during July and August. <br />Following a brief discussion, it was the consensus of Members to separate out the last two (2) <br />sentences of the first bullet point <br />Further discussion included the concept of requesting a strategic vision section for specific <br />funding and implementation priorities versus an overview for a ten -(10) year plan. <br />Page 2, Correction ofthe GLWMO 3 Generation Plan <br />Member Westerberg noted an error in the date listed for receipt ofthe first draft ofthe plan. <br />Proposal Length/Types of Copies <br />Mr. Maloney suggested that, based on past experience with RFP's, the Board stipulate in the <br />RFP the length of material that is directly pertinent to a consultant's response be included in the <br />page limit specified in the draft RFP (12 pages). He recommended language to require additional <br />general information on the firm and their capabilities be provided as an appendix for reference <br />(e.g., list of clients; expertise; resumes) to separate this type of material from the required <br />technical information. <br />Discussion included the size of the document; dissemination by the Board or staff liaisons to <br />copy additional electronic copies. <br />Chair Ferrington concurred, and by Member consensus, agreed the proposals should be limited <br />to twelve (12) pages and an additional statement be included as follows: <br />"Ancillary material describing the firm must be included in appendices and will not <br />count toward the twelve (12) page limit for the proposal." <br />Mr. Maloney opined that this is a way for firms submitting proposals to prioritize their materials <br />within those twelve (12) pages for evaluation by the Board. <br />Following discussion, it was Board consensus that each proposer provide ten (10) paper copies <br />and one (1) electronic copy in PDF format, to be delivered to the official GLWMO address by <br />30 September 2010. <br />Page 3, Groundwater Contamination New Bullet Point <br />Member Eckman noted that the last strategic plan did not address groundwater protection or well <br />contamination. <br />Mr. Petersen noted that organizational agency standards needed to be considered, other than <br />those of the BWSR, and that this could be accomplished through referencing the Ramsey County <br />Groundwater Plan. <br />Chair Ferrington noted that the Ramsey County Groundwater Plan was presently not finished nor <br />approved and is considered by some as a moving target at this time, creating difficulty in <br />attempting to implement a vision for its inclusion in the 3 Generation Plan at this point in time. <br />5 <br />