Laserfiche WebLink
<br />LEITHEAD TODD: Sure. <br /> <br />AU: Yes, yes, please come forward. <br /> <br />PETRICCI: As far as the procurement process, you’re going to be really limited. There’s a limited <br />pool of people that can actually do these kinds of studies on hydrogen sulfide. There’s very few <br />people that are -. The top experts in the world is what we need. So just take that into consideration. If <br />you just put a contract out to bid, I don’t think that’s going to work very well. <br /> <br />LEITHEAD TODD: I think what we’re going to probably do is say that you develop either, you know, <br />that you have to do it either through an RFP, or through a sole source, or, you know, if there’s only a <br />sole source, but some mechanism in the rule that allows us to procure, and it has to be consistent with <br />the Procurement Code. And that’s all that I’m looking for, because my concern was that the way it’s <br />currently drafted everything goes through a Claims Adjuster. And I’ve just, you know, just talked to <br />representatives from the insurance industry and stuff like that and they say, hey, a Claims Adjuster can <br />tell you how much damage you had to that building or that car, but they’re not the person who should <br />tell you whether this study versus that study should get funded. That’s my concern with the Rule. It’s <br />not trying to design or have the Department say this is what the study is going to look like, so much as <br />setting up the process by which you would fund the study. <br /> <br />MELROSE: And I would just add that I just don’t think it needs to be done sequentially. I think <br />exactly what the Director is saying is, you know, fix the structure so the solution can evolve <br />appropriately. And the details of the study aren’t in the rules, they’ll be an advice that comes from the <br />study group. <br /> <br />AU: Yeah, I agree with our testifiers and our Madam Director. You know, it’s not time of an essence. <br />But it’s something that doesn’t have to go hand in hand; and it’s two different things, two different <br />issues, procurement as opposed to the health study. <br /> <br />LEITHEAD TODD: And I might note that Mr. Petricci and his friends can comment on the rule. <br />What I’m proposing is to come in with like a draft rule before we actually go out for a public hearing <br />to adopt so that there can be comment from the public whether the rule addresses your concerns, <br />whether it’s going in the wrong direction, and then we can tweak. And then when the Commission, <br />you know, when we’ve got something that the Commission likes, then we set it up for public hearing <br />with the public notice, cause we’ve got to publish it, and show people what we are, and then have <br />people come in. <br /> <br />AU: Okay. So it would be just a draft and it would come in front of the Commission and it would be <br />open up to public testimony. So I think it would be safe to just go ahead and give direction to the <br />Planning Department and the Madam Director to go ahead with it. Mr. Travis? <br /> <br />T. TRAVIS: I have just one quick comment. If we could figure out some way to involve the <br />community in deciding what the health study is, either being a member of the, who determines the <br />contract is awarded to or not, or having, you know, some accountable input through the elected <br />officials. I think that would also be helpful. Thank you. <br /> 13 <br /> EXHIBIT D <br /> <br /> <br />