Laserfiche WebLink
companies responding to the RFP that all proposals had been rejected by the Board. The Chair <br />will again follow up notifying the companies that the rejection was due to an error in advertising. <br />Discussion on New RFP for Re -Use of UCRTS & Finalization of Release Dates <br />Board members received changes to the RFP by email. Mr. Jack requested that the Board hold <br />off on decision making for one month to properly review the draft, particularly in view of what <br />happened with the prior RFP. Mr. Jack wished to ensure that the RFP accurately reflect what the <br />Board was seeking from respondents. Mr. Jack expressed his concern about increased truck <br />traffic both locally and regionally, adding that the Board initially anticipated receiving a variety <br />of solutions to specifically benefit the Upper Cape and/or the Cape as a region. Mr. Jack wished <br />to further refine the RFP to clearly identify what the Board was seeking and take the time to <br />address necessary details. Chairman Laurent stated that a provision was added to the RFP to <br />address traffic issues due to concerns previously expressed during the original RFP. Mr. Tilton <br />agreed, stating that it was necessary for the Board to identify what they were seeking from any <br />proposer, adding that increased traffic was a concern and that mitigation would be expected if <br />necessary. The Chair had no issue with a delay, but recommended feedback be provided to <br />Weston & Sampson today in order to revise the draft. <br />Mr. Kraus, the attorney representing Recycling Solutions, requested a copy of the draft RFP, as <br />well as changes trade, since the document was being publicly discussed. Chairman Laurent <br />provided a copy. <br />Mr. Richard discussed changes made to the draft. <br />Pg. 1—deleted "Pre Proposal Meeting" opting instead for arranging a private walk <br />through <br />Pg. 1, bottom -----clarification that the RFP was not for sale or lease of the, particularly in <br />light of the previous ad confusion <br />Pg. 3—clarification of site operation at 50,000 tons per year, but the Chair corrected <br />operation figures to have been 35,000 tons per year <br />Pg. 6—changes to experience section to read differently and to garner more interest in the <br />use of the site <br />Item 1.4 -----regarding compatibility with current use, wording change; Chairman Laurent <br />suggested that new uses should not give it a lower rating and Mr. Scipione responded that it was <br />related to non -compatible use, but offering value, such as lumber. Mr. Jack agreed with the <br />Chair. Weston & Sampson will address. <br />Item 1.5—"essentially" was added, ensuring that the new operator would need a DEP <br />permit <br />References ---added advantageous & highly advantageous for a letter, versus a check off; <br />Mr. Jack suggested that "strong" be replaced with "positive" references <br />Item 1.8—traffic control was added in response to concerns about impact expressed by <br />Board members; Mr. Richard read the rankings ranging from non -advantageous for increase in <br />traffic to bridges to highly advantageous for decrease in traffic; Mr. Jack recommended <br />removing the "acceptable" category because traffic increases locally was not acceptable, and Mr. <br />Jack suggested removing the "acceptable" category across the board since it was not clearly <br />defined like the other rankings. The Chair stated that all other criteria would need to be reviewed <br />19 <br />