New Search
(Etter's initial draft) <br /> EVALUATION AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS <br /> HENDRICKS FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSULTANTS <br /> Weight Consultant/Rating Reed Score Satre Score <br /> Proposed product 50% Reed -- 100 50 <br /> Satre -- 80 40 <br /> Methodology to create product 25% Reed -- 90 22.5 <br /> Satre -- 90 22.5 <br /> Education, experience 25% Reed -- 80 20 <br /> Satre -- 100 25 <br /> Cost N.A. <br /> Total score 92.5 87.5 <br /> Product: Reed gets more specific about what the end product will be and who it will be useful to. <br /> Reed also recognizes the relationship of the surrounding area and the relationship of the park to <br /> the City as a whole, whereas Satre makes no mention of looking at surrounding properties, and <br /> the risk/hazard factors that helped prompt this study in the first place. <br /> Methodology: Generally, I find that Reed is a little more brief, as well as specific, about how <br /> they will conduct the work. I think the hours they indicate for some tasks could be adjusted for <br /> getting time on the truly important parts of the job, especially less on the inventorying described <br /> in 2.4. The methodology seems fairly equal. <br /> Education, experience: Satre and Beak's experience combine to give more strength to their team <br /> on this measure. <br /> One can play games with these numbers based on the relative weight assigned to each category. <br /> My belief is that the what the final product contains - -how responsive it is to the situation - -is <br /> more important than the methodology used to create it or the qualifications of those creating the <br /> plan, provided that a "weak link" threshold in any one category is not crossed. I see no week <br /> links. <br /> INTERVIEW QUESTIONS <br /> 1. There are diverse objectives for what various people want this park to be. What has been your <br /> experience (and success ?) in mediating divergent points of view in planning efforts? How did <br /> you "get to yes" or achieve consensus? <br /> 2. What negative consequences would there be for the quality of the report if you were to use <br /> the current mapping of the park supplied by the Parks Planning Office? Current records where <br /> not based on actual topographic surveys are probably horizontally accurate to within 10 feet in <br />