1/4/2017 UPPER CAPE REGIONAL TRANSFER STATION BOARD OF MANAGERS Minutes

Home Browse Search

i Ed Gross, Falmouth Representative to the Cape Cod Joint Transportation Committee referenced how to measure the impacts and benefits in 16 and 23, Mr. Grass also inquired about the public attaining a copy of the final RFP and the Chair responded that the document was being finalized, with dates for release of the RFP by the end of today's meeting. Robert Kraus, attorney for Recycling Solutions, stated that this was the Board's second RFP, suggesting that his client won based on the criteria, but that Mr, Cavossa won based on the pricing proposal. Chairman Laurent responded that all proposals from the first RFP were rejected. Mr. Kraus continued with his suggestion that the RFP was written to exclude his client with plans to slow down the document production and that the process was tainted. U-, Kraus stated that he identified at least eight changes he felt were geared toward awarding the contract to a particular party. Mr. Jack responded that he strongly resented the implication and hart Kraus distributed the 30B Rockland Case to Board members. Mr. Kraus stated that he had concerns about the process and Weston& Sampson's involvement, adding that Recycling Solutions were not the bad guys, seeking only a fair process. The Chair asked lir. Kraus whether he had comments regarding the draft of the IFP but Mr. Kraus asked to finish his statement for the record. lAr. Jack responded that Mr. Kraus was arguing a. case and nuking implications and accusations about members of the Board of a proprietary nature of the previous RFP and/or the current RFP, saying that the Board was deliberately trying to award it to a particular contractor. Mr. Jack stated that he personally and professionally resented Mr. Kraus' implication. Mr. Jack invited Mr. Kraus to share his comments regarding the RFP, Mr. Kraus referenced page l and the incorrect dates. Chairman Laurent responded that the dates were being revised, On page 5, 11r. Kraus suggested that the changes would direct the contract to a particular party. On-page 6, 1.X, Mr. Kraus had no idea what was being referenced in `{minor informalitl es being waived". Mr. Crowley responded that it referenced such issues as not supplying a bond. on page 7, 2.3, Mr. Kraus suggested that the remo-val of acceptable and other changes were geared toward awarding the contract to a particular pw y. Mr. Jack requested further elaboration. Mr. Kraus responded that all his comments were based on his perception that the RFP was changed to benefit Cavossa Disposal, particularly 2.3 where he had no idea about the meaning for Highly Advantageous, "a proposal that essentially does not require additional permits." Chairman Laurent responded that there had been discussion at last month's meeting that any change in operation at the site would require a modification of the permit, but what was allowed by the permit would be unchanged. Essentially meant that it would be a change in the operator but not a change to the permit. The Chair confirmed that.I-Iighly Advantageous was unchanged from the prior RFP other than adding "essentially." Mr. Kraus responded that essentially was a characterization rather than a specificity. Regarding 2.6 and Traffic, Mr. Krauss' concern involved the word"recent," On page 9, Mar. Kraus pointed out the removal of language about{`equal footing' and recommended that the Board check 30B. Mr. Kraus indicated that he would be happy to send the transcription of the meeting recordings. Mr, Kraus recommended that the Board adjourn the RFP process and consult with Town Counsel because in fairness, under 30B. it was his opinion that Recycling Solutions should be entering into negotiations with the Board. Mr. Zavala referenced the bond that would establish fiscal responsibility, whereas a letter and check would not do the same. Mr. Zavala asked the Board to reconsider accepting anything 4