My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/13/1994 BOARD OF SELECTMEN Minutes
>
6/13/1994 BOARD OF SELECTMEN Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2018 5:09:46 PM
Creation date
8/10/2018 9:26:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/13/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
do <br /> DATE:June 13, 1994 <br /> TO: 1 lashpee Board of Selectmen <br /> Executive Secretary Robert whritenour <br /> FROM: Deirdre Greelish, Computer Consultant <br /> R : Municipal Data Processing System RFP <br /> Draft #4 is being presented to the Board ofSelectmen this ening for them- approval. l r . Whrit n ur has <br /> incorporated two major improvements which both Mr. Pucci and I recommended.mended. n addition there are <br /> other points which, I believe, should be corrected prior to your approval of this RFP. <br /> The RFP contains many 2rammatical and ra hical errors. <br /> Some impact the content of the RFP. <br /> page 31 "Proposed Implementation Schedule section (B " states all modules must be completely <br /> operational by 11/1195, while section (A), Phase III implements Assessing 1/1/96. <br /> • page 37 repeatedly mentions Section v regarding comparative evaluation criteria but Section v is <br /> "Proposed Implementation Schedule." <br /> page 38, section 15 ..."recommendation to the Mayor..." not "Board of Selectmen" <br /> • page 40, and mentions "Section IVY Business Specifications" - it does not exist <br /> Some don't impact the legal content, but require correction nonetheless: <br /> • page 19, "Coastal Resources Database Fields" <br /> • page 3 1, "BVI Contractual Requirements C " <br />_ There are features listed under Section 1H "System Technical Secificati ns and Minimum <br /> Re uir•ements" which are not labeled "minimum" later in the- 'P. <br /> For example, <br /> • water District Billing on Page I 1 shows "Optional for "Town to purchase", but is listed onl a e 39 <br /> under Section IX.1.6 "Minl'murn Requirement Technical Questions". <br /> • Coastal Resources Management Database on page 19 appears to be minimum requirement. But on <br /> page 40 under "Nfini urn Requirement Technical Questions," there is a note that says the lacy of this <br /> module will not disqualify a proposal. <br /> Some of the "must" minimum rc uirem nts seem to be vendor-siDecific. <br /> For example, the general ledger program budget feature "must allover user-defined formats and levels of <br /> budgeting." This is a very specific "must,," even though the general ledger/budget capabilitydoes not <br /> require it to be successful. Page 7, "Treasurer/Collector, Property Tax Billing and Receivables Processing <br /> Payments section e is another example. The treasurer will need to apply payments to iinterest, principal, <br /> p , p <br /> betterments and taxes n a certain hierarchy, but to require it be "user-defined'" is excessive as a num um <br /> requirement. <br /> I hope that this partial list serves to exemplify the need for further eitting prior to yourapproval. Both <br /> Tom and I have offered to assist Bob with the work. <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> Ifz4ldlkr <br /> Deirdre Greelish <br /> i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.