My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/03/1995 ECONOMIC DEV AND INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEE Minutes
>
05/03/1995 ECONOMIC DEV AND INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEE Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2025 5:01:35 PM
Creation date
2/27/2025 11:52:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
ECONOMIC DEV AND INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEE
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/03/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE <br /> MAY 3, 1995 <br /> Members Present: Sid Stern, Steve Innnis , Ted Lewis, Sharon <br /> Koblinsky. <br /> Also present: Wayne Duchemin, E.D. Coordinator <br /> Tom Fudala, Town Planner <br /> Robert Whitenour, Executive Secretary <br /> The meeting was called to order at 4: 43 p.m. <br /> The Minutes of April 11 , 1995 were accepted as presented. <br /> Mr. Whritenour stated that he is the chief procurement officer <br /> for the Town, and he reviewed the Comparative Evaluation Criteria <br /> for all RFP ' s noting that EDC' s recommendation must be based <br /> on Criteria Ranking in the following categories : <br /> 1 ) Quality and completeness of proposed program of services . <br /> 2 ) Experience and qualifications of the firm and its management. <br /> 3 ) HUD National Objectives. <br /> 4 ) Job skills , education and .training data. <br /> Mr. Whritenour noted that Kobayashi Associates and Mt. Auburn <br /> Associates were tied with scores of 2 Advantageous/2 Not <br /> Advantageous. Mt. Auburn scored Advantageous in Experience <br /> (outranking Kobayashi ) , while Kobayshi scored Advantageous in <br /> Approach (outranking Mt. Auburn) . Mr. Whritenour asked EDC <br /> to give specific reasons for their ranking, and a discussion <br /> ensued. Ted raised questions re: Kobayashi ' s ability to control <br /> the availability of their agents vs . having employees in place , <br /> as Mt. Auburn does , which is a better utilization of manpower. <br /> Ted noted that Mt. Auburn did not answer the way the procurement <br /> officer had designated and thereby scored lower in approach. <br /> Mr. Whritenour asked the Committte to consider if Mt. Auburn ' s <br /> scope of services was clear so that they will do what EDC asks <br /> them to do. Mr. Fudala noted that he suggested that the scope <br /> of work be covered in the contract. Wayne asked if we open <br /> the bids would the Committee be happy with either one. The <br /> Committee ' s answer was no; they preferred Mt. Auburn. Mr. <br /> Whritenour suggested the Committee rank Mt. Auburn higher on <br /> quality of approach vs. the more quantitative approach by <br /> Kobayashi . It was noted that Paul Reynolds was not satisfied <br /> with Kobayashi ' s quantitative approach to conducting <br /> interviews. The Committee agreed to rank Mt. Auburn' s Approach <br /> Advantageous (giving them a total of 3 Advantageous rankings <br /> over Kobayshi ' s 2 Advantageous ) . Mr. Whritenour added this <br /> information to the Proposal Form stating that he is more <br /> comfortable with this additional information and can now open <br /> the bids . He further stated that price is only one factor <br /> -1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.