Laserfiche WebLink
Tom Wren said #9 of Chartwell ' 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 book. He sees them <br /> working very closely with CCR. <br /> Tom said if this new consultant takes the existing program <br /> statement and develops that , he might want to go a step back, to <br /> improve the infrastructure , but there already exists a contract <br /> with all of the infrastructure . If there are going to be any <br /> changes to what is already signed , the sooner there is a <br /> timeframe 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 Pietrowski shares Tom' s concerns about the existing system. <br /> This consultant will have to look at Childs and 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 . <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 /> the people who understand it (technology subcommittee ) . <br /> Paul said however, the Committee has the ultimate responsibility <br /> to accept it and he wants enough information to make that <br /> judgement. <br /> Peter said if the technology is not user friendly what good is <br /> it? 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 going . <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 5 years . <br /> 3 <br />