2010-10-28_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair Ferrington opined that he (Mr. Olivier) could more clearly and fairly represent a broader perspective of issues in the GLWMO. Member Eckman concurred, opining that he also was a stakeholder given his residence in this watershed. Further discussion included prejudices or benefits of such interest. Member Manzara noted that EOR may require more assistance in getting the Board through the process, while Barr provided for more assistance; and that consideration needed to be given to how much help was needed throughout the process. Member Manzara noted her interest in the Houston suggestions for that involvement. Chair Ferrington suggested that supplementary "technical working committees" may be prudent, with specific tasks and timelines for accomplishment of those tasks in order to facilitate the process. Chair Ferrington also noted his interest in the Houston suggestions. Chair Ferrington suggested further discussion on what kind of representation those technical working committees should have, emphasizing that they would be working committees, not advisory committees, with their commitment established to work with the consultant on a continuous basis toward completion of their committee tasks. Further discussion included the philosophical nature of "technical working committees" and creation of specific expectations and timelines for those efforts to be recommended to the full Board; and liaison roles of individual Board members to specific "technical work committees Selection of preferred consulting company Chair Ferrington requested if any individual members wished to revise their rankings at this point in response to discussion by the Board at large. Member Von De Linde noted that she would like to change several scores for individual ranking criteria, including under Barr, under the category demonstration of consistent record, change from a "6" to a "2," given her limited length on the board and inability to determine that consistency. Also, under the cost column for the Barr proposal, Member Von De Linde requested changing from "5" to "2," after her further review of costs. Member Manzara provided a new composite total average for Barr based on those revisions, from 77.3 to 75.7, which resulted in more consistency and agreement among individual Board members on the highest ranking firm. Chair Ferrington noted that the EOR ranking remained highest at 88.7 points. Member Eckman expressed concern that Barr's price was so much higher than the Board's published budget. She also was concerned with their (Barr's) lack of attempt to stay within the Board's price range, as well spreading the work over such a long time. Member Eckman further noted the history of Barr's substantial overruns with a previous GLWMO project. 5