Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> The Chair indicated that Mashpee had potential interest, but was not ready today to make an <br /> offer without knowing the value. The Chair recommended placing it on the next agenda to <br /> identify the value. If a sale did not occur to a town, the loader would go to auction. Mr. Tilton <br /> inquired about a proposer being interested in the loader, and the Chair responded that towns <br /> would have right of first refusal. Mr. Goddard inquired about the proceeds and it was confirmed <br /> that proceeds would be forwarded to the capital fund, operating fund or disbursed equally among <br /> the towns. The Chair left it to the other members to determine the value. Mr. Goddard <br /> suggested that Mashpee send an email with an offer. Mr. Goddard also suggested voting where <br /> the money should be placed as it may be needed for removal costs of decommissioning the site. <br /> Mr. Crowley inquired whether the Board would consider waiting on a decision about the loader <br /> until contract negotiations were initiated for site reuse. Chairman Laurent responded that it was <br /> a possibility if towns were not interested. Mr. Crowley indicated that the loader offered value to <br /> a bidder. Mr. Goddard recommended that bidders include an addendum to purchase the loader. <br /> Mr. Jack pointed out that if leasing the loader, the UCRTS would continue to maintain and be <br /> responsible for the vehicle. <br /> Discussion of Ranking Protocol/Review Criteria/Interview Selection for Proposals for Re- <br /> Use of UCRTS <br /> Chairman Laurent stated that they had been in receipt of three proposals in response to the RFP. <br /> The RFP included criteria for consideration of each of the proposals and Weston& Sampson <br /> developed a worksheet to utilize. The Chair inquired whether the Board wished to invite all <br /> proposers to be interviewed and Mr. Tilton felt that it would be helpful, in order to have <br /> questions answered. Mr. Goddard agreed. <br /> Ranking protocol would include using the criteria in the RFP. Mr. Jack stated that, due to the <br /> broad differences among the scope of the proposers, he found it to be the most challenging RFP <br /> responses he has assessed. Mr. Jack stated that one proposer did not submit a proposal bond as <br /> requested, and the Chair responded that they had requested a waiver of 21 days. Mr. Tilton <br /> stated that the bond should be submitted and Mr. Jack added that the proposal should not be <br /> considered without it. When asked, Mr. Scipione stated that it would be a legal question whether <br /> a proposal bond could be waived, adding that it was not a formal bid process. The Chair <br /> believed it was requested because the proposer did not intend to use the entire site. <br /> Mr. Tilton also referenced a request from Recycling Solutions regarding traffic and Mr. Scipione <br /> confirmed that 2,000-3,000 was listed in the criteria and should be according to the permit. <br /> Regarding the waiver of the proposal bond, there was agreement among the Board to follow up <br /> with Counsel while reviewing the proposal, although the proposer could be disqualified from <br /> consideration without the bond. Mr. Goddard recommended that it be put in writing to the <br /> proposer, all were in agreement. <br /> Mr. Tilton inquired whether it was necessary to receive balance sheets but Mr. Scipione <br /> responded that it was not critical during review, but would be needed before making a final <br /> decision. Mr. Jack stated that he would recommend concise presentations focusing on the <br /> technical merit of the proposal, and limited to 15 minutes. The Chair inquired whether the Board <br /> wished to forward specific questions to the proposers and Mr. Goddard recommended that <br /> 2 <br />