|
<br />determine if there are health effects on Puna residents that can be linked to geothermal energy
<br />development.
<br />
<br />Dr. Jay Maddock, Chair of the UH School of Public Health, who is to my right, was contracted
<br />to prepare the RFP to conduct the study, and as part of his assignment, he conducted background
<br />research, including meetings with the geothermal health study group, and he’ll continue to assist
<br />the Mayor’s office to see that the RFP is published as broadly as possible in the field.
<br />
<br />Based on the scope of work required, and a review of comparable studies in other places, the
<br />amount requested is $750,000 over three years. As required by the Geothermal Asset Fund rule,
<br />the request was submitted to a claims adjuster for review and recommendation. Upon approval
<br />by the Windward Planning Commission and following procurement procedures, the RFP will be
<br />distributed locally and nationally to solicit proposals from researcher teams with expertise and
<br />experience in conducting these types of community health studies. We do anticipate an award in
<br />the first quarter of next year assuming everything goes well, and the Geothermal Asset Fund
<br />currently contains about 1.96 million dollars, so the fund is adequate to cover this research. Jeff
<br />here can update you on the other four requests that totaled $293,000, a little bit more than that,
<br />that this panel has already approved including air monitoring equipment and so on. And, with
<br />that, I’ll guess I’ll open it up to any questions if that’s appropriate, yeah?
<br />
<br />MIYASATO: Go ahead.
<br />
<br />HENKEL: Mr. Dayton, is it true that the Adler group members weren’t given access to the RFP?
<br />
<br />DAYTON: I’m going to pass actually to Jeff the specific details of that process, yeah?
<br />
<br />MELROSE: No, that’s not true. What we did was, we started when we hired Jay, we went out
<br />and re-pulled that group back in. We had three meetings with them, three drafts over a period of
<br />time. They brought really good insight to the, to the guts and scope of that RFP including what
<br />the key questions are, what we’re really trying to solve here, what are the evaluation criteria,
<br />what, how do you weigh evaluation, how do you, how will you evaluate. So, we had three
<br />meetings at the end of which we said okay, now we got the gut of this piece and then we sent it
<br />to procurement, and procurement now put it into the boilerplate form and it’s being reviewed by
<br />the Corp Counsel. So, at this moment, they’ve been trying to get a hold of the, of the final RFP,
<br />and their procurement concerns about whether or not, because you begin to circulate an RFP
<br />before you’ve actually—you know, it’s an uneven playing field. It needs to out at one time as a
<br />piece. My review of it, all of the issues, all of the wording that was in it, is still in it. The only
<br />difference is we agreed in our review to actually what the evaluation committee would look like,
<br />and that just doesn’t appear in the committee but it was something that Jay said let’s have a
<br />conversation about because let’s make that clear up front, how, what does the evaluation
<br />committee look like. We came to an agreement on that, but the actual numbers of people there
<br />isn’t generally in an RFP. But, other than that, every bit of the wording was in it. The rest of the
<br />wording is just RF—it’s just standard boilerplate. So, there’s just concern about passing that
<br />back out and having it circulate and then find its way into different conversations before there’s a
<br />level playing field for offering it, so that’s—the truth is, in three meetings specifically to shape
<br />23
<br />EXHIBIT F
<br />
<br />
<br />
|