Laserfiche WebLink
eliminated the UMASS, Coastal Systems Program because they did not include incoming groundwater <br /> measurements and also relied heavily on volunteers. Mr. Baker then rated the other two companies <br /> based on the number of measurements they were going to collect. Overall, Mr. Baker feels that ENSR <br /> offers a greater number of samples,particularly as it relates to sediment, and offers the most <br /> information. ESS recommends just one composite of three samples. Mr. Baker ranked the companies <br /> as ENSR, ESS, UMASS. <br /> Bev Kane-Ms. Kane agrees with Mr. Baker regarding UMASS' reliance on volunteers. Ms. Kane also <br /> liked that ENSR linked the project to eligibility for the Clean Water Act. Mr. Baker added that <br /> ENSR's link to state agencies that monitor freshwater could be beneficial to the town. <br /> Rick York-Mr. York reviewed the proposals from a technical perspective identifying such components <br /> as information collection, nutrient budget, TMDL and recommended remediation. In considering the <br /> technical aspect of data collection,the ENSR proposal has four stations, and ESS has only one. <br /> UMASS is looking at sediment regeneration. They are also looking at plankton and will monitor the <br /> watershed. Mr. York felt the UMASS proposal modeling was stronger in identifying the TMDL. <br /> ENSR would only look at septic tanks within 300 feet. Mr. York would rank the proposals as <br /> UMASS, ENSR, ESS. Mr. York also felt that use of volunteers may reduce the overall cost of the <br /> project,but does not consider it a technical consideration. Mr. York has had very good success <br /> working with volunteers. <br /> Ted Theis-Mr. Theis felt that conducting interviews would allow more questions to be answered about <br /> specific analyses. Mr. York added that the Committee could submit a more detailed RFP since the <br /> proposals read as three different scopes of work and Mr. Theis agreed that the original request was <br /> general. Mr. Baker feels it is too late for a more detailed request; companies submitted proposals and <br /> met the criteria requested except that UMASS did not meet the seepage measures to pore water <br /> measurements. Mr. Theis ranked the companies as ENSR,ESS,UMASS. <br /> Ralph Marcelli-Mr. Marcelli inquired about the cost of each company's proposals. The Committee <br /> discussed that the costs would not be presented until one of the companies has been selected based on <br /> its technical merits. <br /> Don Mer-Mr. Meyers was impressed that ENSR would provide a report by 2009 whereas the <br /> UMASS study would not be complete until 2010. Mr. Meyers understood that UMASS planned to use <br /> old empirical data from the watershed dating back to 2000, rather than retesting it, and didn't feel that <br /> was reliable information to be used. Mr. York suggested that UMASS may have already done the <br /> pond studies in the area because he knows of someone who has been doing a study of the ponds. Mr. <br /> York pointed out that the Committee can not make any assumptions about the companies because they <br /> know only what has been written in the proposals, although there may be additional information. Mr. <br /> Meyers ranked ENSR and ESS at the same level, followed by UMASS. <br /> Mr. York asked if the Committee could ask each of the companies' questions. Ms. Mason indicated <br /> that the Committee would need to identify the highly advantageous company first to discuss their <br /> intent and ask them questions. if the Committee could not come to terms with the cost or clarification, <br /> the next company would be invited for an interview. Ms. Mason felt there was a large enough gap <br /> between ENSR/ESS and UMASS that UMASS would have needed to come closer to meeting the <br /> standards to be considered for clarification. <br /> 4 <br />