July 24, 2006
Special Meeting
Present: Ed Melanson, Chairman; Ellen Friedman, Member; Vida Holmes, Member; and Dan Winslow. Absent: Harvey Nasuti, Assistant Chairman
Ed Melanson called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. at the Town Hall in Room 124
Mr. Melanson opened the meeting announcing to those in attendance that this meeting was designated for the purpose of reviewing references for the short list of candidates proposing to perform the water rate study for the Town of Norfolk.
Ms. Holmes checked references on Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM). Informed the Board that the two towns she spoke with gave “glowing” references; did all they said they could do, wonderful to work with; Holden said they’ve been working with them since 1966; Holbrook since 1960 including two (2) water rate studies; stayed within cost estimates.
Ms. Friedman checked references on Tighe & Bond. The towns that she spoke with spoke highly of both principles. Vice President, Omer Dumais, Jr. was always available, but the Consulting Engineer, Tom LeCourt was the main contact during the project; were very pleased and had nothing negative to say. They also noted that Tighe & Bond was very helpful in making many suggestions on how to complete the job most effectively.
Mr. Melanson continued with regard to value vs. price; expressed positive remarks regarding both CDM and Tighe & Bond, but some concern that Tighe & Bond’s estimate for hours might indicate that they did not quite grasp the full scope of the project, but that it can be negotiated as the Board sees fit.
Mr. Melanson then referred to CDM as a major player in all of New England, and pointed out that although their total cost estimate was higher, their hours quoted were proportionately higher as well, resulting in virtually the same cost per hour ($100 vs. $105). Mr. Vito stated that the number of hours stated by CDM was a “not to exceed” number.
Mr. Winslow compared this decision to choosing Coler & Colantonio over Vaness Hagen (sp?) as Town engineers, in part because they are a smaller but well qualified shop, and we wanted to be a bigger client to them. Mr. Winslow expressed concern that CDM sent a marketing professional, rather than one of the principles.
Ms. Friedman discussed putting together the final scope; she wants to talk to the principle from Tighe & Bond again regarding their price “range.” Mr. Melanson again expressed concern that Tighe & Bond might not grasp the full scope of what is expected of them. Mr. Melanson also expressed concern the CDM did not send a principle.
Mr. Melanson proposed an informal consensus vote. It was noted that Mr. Nasuti favored CDM. Mr. Winslow supported Tighe & Bond; Mr. Melanson supported CDM; Ms. Holmes and Ms. Friedman supported Tighe & Bond. Discussion continued with regard to accepting Tighe & Bond as the designated choice and CDM as the alternate if acceptable terms cannot be reached with Tighe & Bond.
Mr. Winslow made a motion to designate Tighe & Bond with CDM as the alternate in the event that agreement cannot be reached with Tighe & Bond on the scope of work. Vote was unanimous, and it was so voted.
At 7:45 p.m. being no further business Mr. Melanson made a motion to adjourn the meeting; Ms. Friedman seconded and it was so voted.
| 
