Laserfiche WebLink
Tori wren said # 9 of Chartwell t s comments talks about this third <br /> consultant reviewing the existing system - the infrastructure <br /> designed by CCR, if he has comments or changes to be made on the <br /> infrastructure there should be a timeframe for which to make <br /> those comments , so no work goes to waste . <br /> Steve said CCR has developed a very generic layout . This <br /> consultant will have pretty much an open boob. He sees them <br /> working very closely with CCRO <br /> Tom said if this new consultant takes the existing program <br /> statement and develops that , he might want to go a stop back, to <br /> improve the infrastructure , but there already exists a, contract <br /> with all of the J of ra.structure . If there are going to be any <br /> changes to what is already signed, the sooner there is a. <br /> time-frame the better so the contractor doesn' t do any work in the <br /> next few Months that may end up being changed . <br /> Paul wants it clearly identified that the committee wants the <br /> consultant to develop the pros and cons of the different <br /> programs ; they want to see a. full blown detail of the products so <br /> they understand it and can make decisions . <br /> Merry sue thinks the consultant should work closely with the <br /> technology subcommittee . <br /> Mike Pietrows i shares Tom' s concerns about the existing` system4 <br /> This consultant will have to look at Childsand CCR' s program <br /> statements and there will be a, difference of opinion% <br /> Ian asked for a clarification of fixed fees , does that include <br /> expenses Paul said it does , fixed fee including expenses o <br /> Janice said she is not sure this entire group should have the <br /> entire presentation from the consultant . It should be given to <br /> theeo le who understand it (technology subcommittee ) * <br /> p P <br /> Paul said ho evert the committee has the ultimate responsibility <br /> to accept it and he wants enough i n fo rmat i o n to make that <br /> judgements <br /> Peter said .if the technology is not user friendly wham good is <br /> it'd The same 'is true for the consultant . if the entire <br /> Committee cannot understand It maybe he shouldn' t be our <br /> consultant . <br /> Janice agrees but the subcommittee should shift through it first <br /> Paul said this committee should see the final presentation and <br /> make the final recommendation, <br /> Mike Pietrowski said the consultant should be required to list <br /> their last 5 years of projects , especially integrated <br /> communication systems and he would like to see a statement of <br /> their vision on technology and where they see it go.ing . <br /> Paul asked SMMA add to the RFP that if they get 'interviewed , they <br /> will be expected to give a presentation on where they think <br /> technology is going in the next years . <br /> 3 <br />