My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/3/2017 UPPER CAPE REGIONAL TRANSFER STATION BOARD OF MANAGERS Minutes
>
5/3/2017 UPPER CAPE REGIONAL TRANSFER STATION BOARD OF MANAGERS Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2019 5:05:18 PM
Creation date
2/15/2019 2:56:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
UPPER CAPE REGIONAL TRANSFER STATION BOARD OF MANAGERS
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/03/2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
5 <br /> Regarding rail trach improvements, Mr. Pearson stated that the tracks were usable or could be made <br /> usable in a reasonable amount of time. Regarding the Fail liver site, Mr. Pearson was working with <br /> Gold Metal Bakery to request a state grant to improve the trach to their facility located near Mr. <br /> Pearson's facility. Mr. Pearson has negotiated a base for up to 40 rail cars. <br /> Regarding cost savings to the towns, Mr. Pearson referenced a handout highlighting the amounts of <br /> reduced bid results. Mr. Pearson suggest that competition and availability of salt locally would result <br /> in savings and would be a benefit to the towns. Contracted towns would have first priority to the salt <br /> and salt stored at the site would be available only to Cape towns. Mr. Pearson was also reviewing the <br /> possibility of improved, same day delivery of salt if the supply was located at JBCC. <br /> Mr. Pearson explained wording if the UCRTS offered durable presence on land in order to finance <br /> improvements. Mr. Pearson confirmed that a new paved area would fit with his financial model. Mr. <br /> Pearson also confirmed that the state building authority indicated there would be no problem with a <br /> membrane building, provided local building regulations were met, Mr. Pearson also spoke with JBCC <br /> who responded that they had no authority over the site as it rested with the Board of Managers, <br /> Moisture would be prevented by constructing the membrane building or using polypropylene <br /> coverings. Mr. Pea son's hope was that salt would not be stored after the end of the season. <br /> Mr. Goddard inquired why Mr. Pearson's salt storage area was larger than Mr. Cavossa and whether or <br /> not 111.1r. Pearson could live within the existing pavement. The Chair stated that more information was <br /> needed from MassDOT. Mr. Cavossa stated that it was his understanding that truck and bus training <br /> could be combined. Mr. Pearson responded that he could operate within the existing paved areas. Mir. <br /> Goddard inquired about the potential for spillage and Mr. Pearson responded that the conveyer did not <br /> create spillage, but that contingencies would be in place in case of spillage. <br /> Ir, Tilton inquired about procurement and if Saltine warrior did not win the low bid. The Clair <br /> stated that Saltine warrior did not rely soler on municipalities but also local commercial entities. Mr. <br /> Pearson added that he would continue to service locals in emergency situations despite whether or not <br /> there was a contract. <br /> Chairman Laurent referenced the Fall Diver rail improvement and inquired about the proposed <br /> transportation plan while the rail was under construction. Mf. Pearson responded that trucking was an <br /> option but that he anticipated it would not be long for the rail to be refurbished. <br /> PROCESS <br /> Mr. Costello addressed the Board regarding process and the comprehensive evaluation of non-price <br /> proposals along with a detailed written check list of ratings for each contractor, and with a written <br /> report of ratings for each proposer. Today's interviews wrapped up the non-price evaluation process. <br /> Mr. Costello recommended that once the board reconvened, they should review the prepared <br /> composite readings and if any modifications were necessary to the composite rating based on the <br /> interviews, it should be discussed confirming or modifying the ratings in writing. Once the non-price <br /> proposal evaluation was completed, the price proposals could then be reviewed by the Board. The <br /> Board could then determine the award of contract (s), based on the non-price proposal and the price <br /> proposal. Details of the plan would be negotiated in the final contract. <br /> During the break, there should be no discussion amongst members of the Board regarding the matter. <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.