[0:03] Alright. Today is Thursday, May 19. It's 11:37AM.

[0:09] Brian O'Donnell from John Davis. Please stand state

[0:13] your name for the record. Mack and Malone,

[0:16] procurement coordinator. Kim Sharp, GIS manager. Adam Stafford,

[0:22] IT applications manager. Doron Spence, public works coordinator.

[0:27] Beatrice Alvarez, Assistant Public Works Director. Jeff Polin,

[0:32] Partnership, Creation and Cultural Letters Department Director. Thank

[0:35] you. We are here for ITN number RM2217.

[0:40] This is titled New Enterprise Asset Management System,

[0:43] EAM Work Order System. We're here for the

[0:47] review committee for, it's, I'm gonna go over

[0:51] where we've been and where we've gone. So

[0:53] a couple of things, Really quickly, we have

[0:57] several representatives online. They're here today to observe

[1:02] only. There is no input from the review

[1:05] committee. If we choose later on to do

[1:08] presentations or anything of that nature, we'll schedule

[1:12] those appropriately and handle those through that process.

[1:14] But today, we're here to observe, so thank

[1:17] you for your attendance. You're both welcome to

[1:19] be here or via via Webex. So turning

[1:23] my attention back to the reviews meeting, the

[1:26] four people, Tim Shar, Adam Stafford, Ron, Spence,

[1:32] Beatrice Alvarez, and Jeff Pullman are five members

[1:35] of this review community, myself and Becca are

[1:40] facilitators of this process. So we are not

[1:42] voting just so everybody understands that, we'll be

[1:46] making the decision with Sam. We'll be guiding

[1:49] you through this process. Any questions up to

[1:53] this point as far as where we're at?

[1:55] Yep. So I've been on other review committees

[2:00] and I guess this has never been part

[2:02] of the ones I've been in. But for

[2:05] this particular, one, as I went through everything,

[2:12] I felt that the presentation part to me

[2:19] is very important. And I don't know if,

[2:23] and this was just a question that I

[2:25] didn't want to ask since, you know, there

[2:26] was the, you know, can't talk about it.

[2:31] Do we need to shortlist today without the

[2:33] presentation? That's part of the timeline. Okay. That

[2:35] was my only question. Yeah. As far as

[2:37] process or any interview. Yeah. So I'm gonna

[2:40] go through the just kind of where we've

[2:42] been and then where we're going. So this

[2:45] one's available on Monday, December 20. It was

[2:48] a mandatory for the post meeting on January

[2:51] 10 at 2PM. The responses were two back.

[2:56] 03/15/2022 at 2PM. And at that time, we

[3:05] took responses from the following, IPS Energy USA

[3:12] Incorporated, PaintStar, Mass Group Incorporated, PSD, Citywide Incorporated,

[3:18] Smart Energy Water, SeaLink Incorporated, and Seafro Solutions.

[3:24] So we went through an administer after that.

[3:26] Subsequent to that, we went through an administrative

[3:28] review process, and it was determined that there

[3:32] were three companies that were, deemed disqualified due

[3:37] to the fact that they were not they

[3:39] did not provide, all the required information, so

[3:42] they were not responsive to our documents. So

[3:46] at that point, we disqualified them and that

[3:48] was IPS Energy USA, PSD Citywide Incorporated and

[3:53] Safe Grove Solutions. So what that left you

[3:57] with was Mainstar, manufacturing automated systems, DVA mass

[4:02] group, smart energy systems, DVA smart energy water,

[4:06] and SeedLink Incorporated. So those are the four

[4:09] that you'll be reviewing today or you'll have

[4:11] any discussions on. So subsequent also you should

[4:16] have received each one of the review committee

[4:17] members that should have received all of these

[4:20] responses that we have for you to review.

[4:22] You should have done your homework, actually went

[4:25] probably through a class with Rebecca just going

[4:27] through on just a refresher on the review

[4:30] committee process. So today we're here to have

[4:34] that review committee and go through discussion. So

[4:37] if you turn your attention to the administrative

[4:40] review document, it's a very small frame, there's

[4:43] a lot of information here, but if you

[4:45] can, please check your attention here. And, going

[4:49] through the checklist, looking at everything, I don't

[4:52] see anything outside of the norm on the

[4:58] process. Is there anything else, Rebecca, that you

[5:00] needed to add to this or any comments

[5:03] from you as a review committee based on

[5:06] this? No. Okay. So look at the next

[5:15] document we have in front of us here.

[5:17] This is your score sheet. So we're gonna

[5:23] get to your point, Beatrice, where you're at,

[5:25] where we're going with this. So this was

[5:28] done as an ITN. You may be familiar

[5:31] with RFPs and other, solicitations that we do

[5:35] RFPs, RFQs. This is an invitation and negotiation.

[5:38] There is a little bit different element with

[5:41] this one. Okay, so there's a difference between

[5:44] how we negotiate with and how we negotiate.

[5:47] Okay, but as far as ranking, we will

[5:50] do the process. We'll go through the scoring

[5:53] using the best value scoring that we use.

[5:55] But what we'll be doing is evaluating these

[5:59] firms based on the firm's qualification, qualifications of

[6:03] the firm and key staff, stability of key

[6:05] staff, project experience and past performance, best overall

[6:09] approaches to show the services, client references plus

[6:12] previous experiences with governmental agencies, experience and technical

[6:16] capabilities, current recent project projected workload, firms demonstrate

[6:21] firm demonstrates consistency in meeting project time and

[6:25] budget strengths, demonstrates minimization of change orders and

[6:30] amendments and local preference. So these are the

[6:33] evaluation criteria you're looking at to determine who

[6:37] is the top ranked. And that being designated,

[6:39] we do, like I said, a best value.

[6:42] You don't use a hundred point scale. We

[6:44] rank the number one being the best rank.

[6:47] They're your favorite. They're the top. They're the

[6:49] best overall solution. You think of them. They're

[6:52] the top ranked in second, third, and fourth.

[6:55] So you have four. So you'll have one,

[6:57] two, three, and four. There's no two ones,

[7:00] there's no two twos, there's no two threes,

[7:02] and there's no decimals or anything like that.

[7:04] So it's either one, two, three, or four.

[7:07] That's how you're going to score them in

[7:09] regards to putting down that scoring process. Everybody

[7:13] clear on that? Yep. Okay. Thank you. Alright.

[7:17] We'll be in the process. Again, this is

[7:19] you're gonna have this open discussion, and I'm

[7:22] gonna ask, you know, since public works is

[7:24] the lead on this, that you'll be probably

[7:26] starting to opening dialogue. Sure. But before we

[7:29] start that, there's a couple of things that

[7:31] are at your disposal. Today is the first

[7:35] part of this could be you could be

[7:39] reviewing these and having this discussion and there's

[7:41] someone that just stands out and says this

[7:44] is basically from what we've read they can

[7:47] do everything we want we see it we're

[7:49] good we want to move on collectively making

[7:53] that determination. Or there could be further discussions,

[7:57] do we have enough information, do we need

[7:59] something? So we have four companies here, if

[8:02] you wanted to shortlist and bring back for

[8:04] presentations, three of the four, two of the

[8:09] four, whatever. That's up to you as the

[8:12] review committee has when you go, but we'll

[8:14] do a scoring and then we'll look at

[8:15] this and see who are we going to

[8:17] bring back for presentations if we need any

[8:19] presentations. But that's out here in this world.

[8:22] We can also, if you feel that you

[8:24] don't need a full presentation, but you need

[8:26] answers, what we'll do is send out questions

[8:30] to the firms, getting their responses and we'll

[8:33] reconvene as a review committee to review those.

[8:36] And then after the review of those, you

[8:39] may be able to make a decision. But

[8:41] that's just a step that's available to you

[8:43] instead of doing a full blown presentation. But

[8:46] again, these are at your disposal for making

[8:50] that determination on who is the top rank.

[8:54] Any questions on that? No. Okay. So, again,

[9:00] we'll get to once we get to the

[9:02] point where we're looking at who we want

[9:04] to negotiate with, differences with this is you

[9:08] can take two or three to negotiate with

[9:13] on instead of just having a we can

[9:16] go either simultaneous negotiation or we can do

[9:20] it basically sequential, but those are the two

[9:23] methods that we can choose and we can

[9:25] choose that when we want to make our

[9:27] recommendation choose negotiate with the top rank and

[9:30] if unsuccessful, we can go to the second

[9:32] ranked and then we can go to the

[9:33] third. Or we can actually pick top two

[9:36] and then we can begin negotiations with both.

[9:40] If you'd want to go to that, then

[9:42] there's basically what we would have is go

[9:46] through the negotiations and whoever that negotiation committee

[9:49] would be to make the determination is who

[9:52] is going to be recommended. Typically, there's either

[9:54] a VAPO or there's an adjustment or basically

[9:58] negotiations are failing with one and they're basically

[10:01] having good negotiations with the second. The negotiation

[10:06] part is a little bit different, but you

[10:07] can actually negotiate with two firms instead of

[10:10] just doing it sequentially like we do as

[10:12] an RFP. This is the beauty of an

[10:14] ITN. It allows especially in the technology range.

[10:17] This is where it was developed from, so

[10:21] it it it's a good fit for us.

[10:23] But, again, you can choose, and, again, it

[10:25] depends on how your discussion is going. What

[10:27] you've seen or what you've read will guide

[10:30] you to this process of where we wanna

[10:32] go. So with that, I'm gonna be quiet

[10:34] now, and I know you're all thankful. Gonna

[10:41] turn it over to you. Sure. You begin

[10:42] your dialogue. What I also urge you, a

[10:46] couple of things. I know you went through

[10:49] the class, but speak the names of the

[10:51] companies of who you're talking about. Be clear

[10:53] on that when you're discussing these so that,

[10:56] you know, they're not just people guessing at

[10:58] what you're saying as far as that goes.

[11:00] If there's anything, questions, you can ask us

[11:03] seizure wise or you can discuss them off

[11:06] yourself, but I just want to make sure

[11:07] that you're not going, I'll let these firms

[11:10] be clear on those so that everybody understands.

[11:12] Okay? Thank you, Anna. I'll turn it over

[11:15] to you. All right. Thank you, guys, for

[11:17] coming today, all of the vendors as well.

[11:20] So what I wanted to do is go

[11:21] directly into the scope, section 5.2, and just

[11:24] what I was able to do and what

[11:26] I would like us to discuss more so

[11:28] is the exact bullet points of what we

[11:29] expected versus on what they presented and how

[11:34] well it matched with what our desired needs

[11:36] are for this particular work order EAM. So

[11:41] some of the things that I did was

[11:42] make some notes so maybe we can dialogue

[11:45] at each bullet point. So I'll just kind

[11:47] of start the dialogue and we can, I

[11:50] guess, address each company per bullet and just

[11:53] discuss how we feel about that particular bullet

[11:55] and our needs for that particular item? So

[11:57] the first one is a multi user interface

[11:59] with message chat capabilities. All right. So we

[12:03] can start with the first company here, MainStar.

[12:06] My notes have that I'm not sure how

[12:10] seamless and user friendly this particular feature is.

[12:14] They do support multi user interface. I believe

[12:18] they stated something like supporting in system messaging.

[12:21] This allows a full history of communications by

[12:24] party and time date. But I'm not sure

[12:26] within a mobile app if it's as user

[12:29] friendly. So again, that would be something my

[12:31] recommendation to see during a possible presentation during

[12:36] that. So you guys have any comments on

[12:38] that first one for Main Star? From what

[12:46] I recall, I think, I think the, the

[12:48] same thing that you were saying about the

[12:49] chat not being as user friendly, and I

[12:51] think there was maybe an upcharge for it

[12:53] being instant. So it was I think there

[13:00] was the two options, but it was just

[13:03] a different Additional charge. Anybody else for MainStar

[13:08] regarding multi user interface with message or chat

[13:10] capabilities? So moving on to the next company,

[13:15] that would be MAS Group, the Manufacturing Automation

[13:20] and Software Systems. They do not mention a

[13:23] chat capability or multi user interface. Okay. Moving

[13:28] on to smart energy systems. They seem to

[13:32] have a pretty comprehensive chat capability. They provide

[13:35] admin staff, including authorized parties such as the

[13:38] editor, facilitator, etc, with the ability to communicate

[13:41] directly within their trademark system, which I thought

[13:45] was a great feature. Did anybody else have

[13:48] any comments or see that as well? I

[13:54] agree with you on that. We can go

[13:59] bold by bold or if we just wanted

[14:01] to talk about it as a whole. I

[14:03] think that might be easier for some dialogue,

[14:05] just me personally, but I'll defer to you

[14:09] as the lead. I mean, you have something

[14:12] particular, especially in regards to this company, since

[14:15] we are talking about Smart Energy, I don't

[14:17] mind diverging if you'd like to communicate about

[14:21] it. Things that you saw that you were

[14:22] either impressed with that you felt would meet

[14:25] our needs. I have I mean, I felt

[14:28] like their submittal was something very user friendly.

[14:32] I agree. And so even the way that

[14:35] they did their submittal is something that I

[14:37] would want to see on my app. It

[14:40] was just very easy to read. It was,

[14:43] I could see field staff really understanding how

[14:47] to, utilize this because everything was with flow

[14:50] charts and everything was very, again, user friendly.

[14:54] So screenshots were very clear. Yes. On how

[14:59] the program actually worked. It wasn't as general

[15:03] as maybe some of the other, main star,

[15:11] their proposal was, well written, but it wasn't

[15:16] as detailed when it came to actually seeing

[15:19] how the program worked. And so in that

[15:22] case, you know, I would need to see

[15:25] more of a presentation to understand Smart Energy

[15:29] Systems kind of explained it very well in

[15:32] their proposal. Okay. You did unmute Adam. So

[15:38] now with balancing that out with bringing in

[15:43] an oncoming presentation, potentially. Are we articulating that

[15:47] we would like to see more details in

[15:50] these presentations because their actual documentation did not

[15:54] provide that clarity? Or are they being excluded

[15:57] because they did not upfront provide enough of

[16:02] that? And it's just too vague. I don't

[16:06] believe all of our the people who presented,

[16:09] I don't personally think that we need a

[16:12] presentation from all of them. I do personally

[16:14] think possibly two for sure, but maybe even

[16:18] three. But I believe one company didn't for

[16:21] me. But again, we can talk about that.

[16:24] Because they have different benefits, bells and whistles.

[16:28] You know what I mean? I think if

[16:30] I can't, let me personally think the presentation

[16:32] is really important for this type of that

[16:36] we're asking because I think it's important for

[16:37] us to touch, touch, feel, see it so

[16:40] that we know especially for Right. Field reporting

[16:43] and and the staff and usability and to

[16:46] see it on the smart energy systems since

[16:49] we're on that. Didn't like that they were,

[16:52] GIS centric, which was a big component of

[16:54] this, especially from the IT and internal reporting.

[16:57] When you say they, who are you referring

[16:58] to? Smart Energy Systems. Okay, because MainSTAR also

[17:02] is very GIS incorporated and so is Z

[17:05] Link. However, for me, Z Link was I'm

[17:09] sorry to interject, but I just wanted to

[17:11] comment. I feel like they're more project manager

[17:14] focused. They had CAD drawings and it was

[17:16] just a little bit very high detail. So

[17:19] for our user staff who's going to use

[17:21] it, I don't think that would be effective.

[17:22] Even though they're extremely GIS integrated, even with

[17:25] CAD drawings and probably pin or droplicate. I

[17:28] have a question that really was even connected

[17:31] to That's what I'm saying. Perhaps not really

[17:35] data. Right. And that might incur some additional

[17:43] questions when it comes to the fact that

[17:46] more technical data delivery requires more work. So

[17:51] depending on what this ITN is actually budgeted

[17:54] for, how much uplift the organization has. I

[17:58] don't think Z Link even they're not really

[18:00] providing what we're looking for. For me, I

[18:02] have literally a slew of things that just

[18:04] doesn't support what we're looking for. From mobile

[18:07] navigation to unique numbering in our work order,

[18:10] like very specific things that we need and

[18:12] want. They didn't even mention them, so I

[18:14] don't really even want to see a presentation.

[18:16] That's why was saying possibly if we do

[18:18] see a presentation, I definitely would love to

[18:19] see it from Smart Energy Main Star and

[18:21] Mass Group. But I would like to talk

[18:24] about the things that they did not have

[18:25] just so that we could vocally have that

[18:27] here recorded. When we move into presentation, we

[18:30] can kind of revisit that and see if

[18:32] those are the needs that are met. I've

[18:34] been here for a second. Let me make

[18:36] a suggestion. You guys kind of jump it

[18:38] around a little bit. Do you want to

[18:40] just do a roll down the line of

[18:43] an overall overall overall? That way you guys

[18:46] can kind of go back on that so

[18:48] that way you know, one of you have

[18:50] that period to talk about what thought you'd

[18:52] like or not like throwing out there as

[18:54] a suggestion that way, you know, give an

[18:56] overview and then you you can dialogue a

[18:58] little bit more. Jeff, do you want to

[19:00] start with Mainstar and then we can all

[19:04] go from there? Sure. Mainstar, you know, excuse

[19:12] me, I appreciate it. Biggest thing that stood

[19:14] out to me with Mainstar and I think

[19:15] it meets the needs, think it does, but

[19:18] the cost. And other cost is a factor

[19:20] and it was the highest budget and way

[19:23] over budget. Obviously, with the invitation and negotiate,

[19:26] from a presentation standpoint, then we do have

[19:28] the right to maybe pick and choose what

[19:30] we actually need because they had a lot

[19:32] of bells and whistles, they had a lot

[19:33] of add on features. It was great, it

[19:36] seemed like a very robust system to me,

[19:38] but I don't know if it's more than

[19:41] what we're looking for and some of those

[19:43] things can be scaled down. You know, looking

[19:46] at a broader scale too, they did have

[19:48] a fleet management module as well, which, you

[19:51] know, from a town wide standpoint, that may

[19:53] be something We can grow too. Yeah. That

[19:55] the town as a whole would like to

[19:56] incorporate. I wasn't totally sure on the iPad

[20:02] or tablet interface, and I was impressed on

[20:05] page 90, but I would have some questions

[20:07] questions for them on what the info reporting

[20:10] and what it actually looked like. I thought

[20:13] the citizen portal was a nice touch too.

[20:15] I know that wasn't something that was necessarily

[20:16] outlined in the bid, but I did think

[20:19] that that was a nice feature, especially for

[20:21] a work order system that citizens could and

[20:24] then it linked directly into the system. I

[20:27] guess from a IT standpoint and maybe Adam

[20:30] might be able to address this, but I

[20:32] know all of them were cloud based systems.

[20:34] I didn't know if there was a platform

[20:35] preferred. I think two of them use an

[20:37] Amazon web based whereas the others were like

[20:40] SAS. I don't know if maybe you can

[20:43] touch on that Adam while we get to

[20:44] it, but I did think too from their

[20:47] their client references and things. They did seem

[20:50] to have some, you know, obviously municipal experience

[20:52] where I think, you know, it translates to

[20:54] what we were looking at. Those are just

[20:58] kind some some general things but like we've

[21:00] talked about too, I think presentations on a

[21:04] shortlist of these companies based on how the

[21:06] committee votes, I think is going to be

[21:07] very valuable as we go through it because

[21:09] we can only get so much off the

[21:10] documents submitted and I think it's very important

[21:13] to be able to touch, feel, and see

[21:15] it. So those are my kind of brief

[21:18] summary notes on a question. How do you

[21:23] feel about Mass Group, the next company? We

[21:26] want to have one Just one at a

[21:28] time? Okay. I agree with well, your go,

[21:32] Beatrice, sorry. I agree with everything Jeff said.

[21:37] They were the most, I mean, support everything

[21:42] that we asked for and much more. So

[21:45] there wasn't any really point other than the

[21:49] one question about the chat that can easily

[21:51] be asked. And they did have the most

[21:55] amount of, like municipalities and government related type

[22:01] cities. Again, I just think I didn't understand

[22:04] too much exactly how the program works because

[22:07] it we didn't get like the snapshots and

[22:09] stuff. So the presentation for this particular company

[22:12] will be very important. I agree with both

[22:17] of them. Paul? In regards to Jess points,

[22:26] so SaaS is just software as a solution

[22:29] where we're buying a package deal Off the

[22:33] shelf. Off the shelf. It's provided as a

[22:37] all in one inclusive kinda, you know, product.

[22:42] And as for hosting environments, you know, for

[22:48] the content or what is available that will

[22:52] be provided or put into these systems, They're

[22:55] not sensitive data. They're not criminal justice or

[22:58] PAPI. So those can be housed in almost

[23:02] any, you know, environment, whether it's Azure, AWS,

[23:06] Google Cloud, or, you know, whether it's a

[23:09] gov side or public side. So we don't

[23:12] have a strong feeling towards either one, as

[23:15] long as we're not putting any kind of

[23:18] sensitive data or information in those places. The

[23:24] one thing that comes back with a lot

[23:26] of these things is just going to be,

[23:29] you know, which I'll defer to Tim on

[23:31] the GIS integration. What's the level of GIS

[23:34] integration? And seeing a demo of it really

[23:37] kind of lets you know whether or not

[23:39] are we using your resemblance of GIS data,

[23:45] or are you using our actual inventory of

[23:47] GIS data? So consuming, utilizing, and things like

[23:50] that, slightly different and demos really play a

[23:54] hard factor in that. I think using our

[23:57] GIS data is very important for this application.

[24:01] And moving forward, because we want to make

[24:03] sure that we're not creating these silos of

[24:08] data in every single SaaS or third party

[24:11] product that we use, where we're trying to

[24:13] really push forward with the mindset of, here's

[24:19] our inventory of what we have that we

[24:22] wanna utilize with all of our products. We

[24:24] don't wanna have, you know, a third party

[24:27] copy that we have to maintain, update, and

[24:29] kinda manage. So that's where we we're updating

[24:31] it twice because we're updating our end and

[24:33] then we update it. Right. So we're we're

[24:36] we're streamlining all of that, and that's our

[24:38] future focus. But From what you saw in

[24:41] do all four of them I know maybe

[24:43] that can be worked out in presentations or

[24:45] additional questions, but I just I don't talk

[24:47] the the IP language. It was it was

[24:50] hard to determine. It was hard to determine

[24:52] if if if what where they were with.

[24:55] Is it copied? Is it Google? Or is

[24:58] it, you know, like a lot of people

[25:01] will refer, you know, a lot of software

[25:03] products will defer to, you know, mapping services

[25:08] that are out there, you know, whether it's

[25:10] Bing or Google to, you know, use their

[25:12] service, but it doesn't mean that it is

[25:15] our mapping inventory and services and what we

[25:18] have. It's somebody else's version of our facts.

[25:23] And so that's where it's hard to tell

[25:26] exactly what they're utilizing. I appreciate that. Because

[25:29] we can't talk about it prior, that was

[25:31] a question that I had. Just wasn't clear

[25:35] on how that would look. For the GIS

[25:38] integration in particular, speaking into specific terms of

[25:41] integration, not some kind of interface that's been

[25:44] made back and forth, there were only two

[25:46] that were cleared for GIS integration. Those being

[25:50] Pinkstar as far as the other one. The

[25:54] others offered some different things, some of which

[25:57] is that I'm saying wasn't necessarily very clear.

[26:01] They seem to have some other focus that

[26:02] maybe now overlapped with existing prod products like

[26:05] the project ops. Right. Need to really move

[26:10] into that realm, I don't think. And another

[26:13] one, mass group seem to offer more of

[26:16] a custom interface development. Mhmm. That's fine. Really

[26:20] seems like needed Mhmm. Data back and forth

[26:23] with that one. The other two were clear.

[26:26] They're built in through integrations Mhmm. From the

[26:32] BI standpoint then. So we should enterprise asset

[26:35] management as a whole consists of many components,

[26:38] one of which is an asset registry, Our

[26:40] intent for different things that can be geographically

[26:43] located is GIS is that asset registry. We're

[26:48] talking something like a storm water features, different

[26:50] roads, perhaps in the future street furniture. We

[26:54] can get into different assets of the parks.

[26:56] That really that serves that asset registry piece.

[27:00] And to the extent possible, as you're you

[27:03] don't really wanna replicate that. Find yourselves having

[27:06] to try to keep that in sync and

[27:08] contain it separately. So yeah. Definitely. Moving on

[27:14] to the next company specifically, Jeff, do you

[27:16] want to talk about the MAS Group and

[27:18] your findings with them? Manufacturing, automation, and software

[27:22] systems? Sure. Go down. So, when I read

[27:29] in different things, obviously the cloud based solutions

[27:31] we're looking for was Amazon, felt like they

[27:35] didn't really have a whole lot of municipal

[27:37] applications. It was mostly law enforcement, schools, military,

[27:41] things like that. Not saying that it couldn't

[27:43] work but I just didn't see a lot

[27:44] of client reference or applications related to kind

[27:48] of what we typically handle on day by

[27:50] day. Mhmm. From a budget standpoint, seem to

[27:54] be in line with what some of our

[27:56] budget constraints are. Like I said before, I

[27:59] was unclear about the GIS and the interface

[28:02] which I think didn't have help answer. They

[28:06] have questions on the symptom capabilities and that

[28:09] infield reporting from tablets and smartphones and and

[28:12] some of those items that we currently use

[28:15] in the field and then a full person

[28:16] as well. So I did have I I

[28:18] think I had more questions on on their

[28:21] stuff that, you know, could potentially be answered

[28:23] in a demo, but I think I had

[28:29] more questions on their stuff. Mean, I think

[28:34] potentially meet our needs. I just don't know

[28:36] if that would be the best solution for

[28:38] us based on the initial Beatrice, what are

[28:42] your findings on MathGroup? Yeah, I saw that

[28:47] similarly, a lot of their examples were more

[28:51] in regards to asset management and record keeping.

[28:56] For example, one of theirs was the charter

[28:58] school. And so they were, the school was

[29:02] needing to be able to upkeep all their

[29:05] books and records and inventory. And so it

[29:08] seemed to do a good job with all

[29:09] of that. I'm just, I just didn't see

[29:11] as much of the, work order, reporting and

[29:17] the, the, back and forth between like a

[29:21] supervisor and a field employee and those kind

[29:24] of capabilities that again, through our presentation, we

[29:27] may be able to answer. Yeah, I see

[29:30] they don't mention chat capabilities or multi user

[29:33] interfaces. They don't mention workflow sequencing, which is

[29:35] basically what we really needed to dive into.

[29:38] They don't mention automatic unique work order numbering.

[29:40] They didn't mention GIS integration. They have no

[29:43] navigation. The reports, they had PDF docs and

[29:47] different types. However, their mobile component was very

[29:50] limited. Like it's not navigation friendly. The user

[29:53] interface does not it doesn't look seamless, neither

[29:57] easy to use. It was just more of

[29:58] like a sign off type of a thing.

[30:00] We could sign that work was done, but

[30:02] we need more of a sequence and automation.

[30:06] So that was my viewpoint on that. I

[30:08] did speak with someone from the airport, one

[30:11] of their references, but they don't use it

[30:13] in the capacity that we would need to

[30:15] use it in. But they were very satisfied

[30:16] with their product. Like to what both of

[30:20] Jeff and Beatrice said, it seemed more asset

[30:22] management from that standpoint. Inventory. I agree with

[30:33] what you all said. Exactly. Same same points.

[30:50] Take your given features and what was discussed

[30:54] earlier about the shortlisting presentations, but not just

[30:59] presentations, demonstrations as well. Yeah, we definitely need

[31:02] that. So, that standpoint, specifically with being a

[31:07] star as an engine that have a built

[31:09] in GIS integration that has set of references

[31:13] that were in the realm of what we're

[31:15] working on. Who are you referring to? Jim,

[31:18] who are you referring to now? Mainstar. No,

[31:21] we're talking about mask groups. Yeah, just gave

[31:23] you the first got it. But, yeah, they

[31:29] had a set of references covered. We're looking

[31:33] at some specific. That's the inventory focus on

[31:43] the. For a custom interface where we're trying

[31:47] to go off the shelf. Configuration, here that

[31:52] would be more of a testing phase to

[31:54] work with the PIS. That would be positive,

[31:56] right? Positive. Immediate time, long term maintenance, as

[32:02] well as really having data disconnecting from the

[32:06] PRS, not getting it directly through services. Yeah.

[32:10] I wanted to touch upon that because one

[32:12] of the things I was trying to identify

[32:14] was whether or not those assets and things

[32:19] that you're reporting on, sometimes they don't exist

[32:22] as an actual inventory item. Right. Like a

[32:24] sidewalk. In a sidewalk or a pothole that

[32:27] appears in a roadway. How do you manage

[32:31] a nonexistent inventory or a nonexistent issue in

[32:36] the asset system? Right. Jeff, do you want

[32:42] to start on smart energy systems, your findings?

[32:53] I think they provided some of the best

[32:56] individuals as far as so that we could

[32:58] actually see what the system would look and

[33:00] feel like. Got the impression from their response

[33:06] that it was fully capable on top of

[33:08] the smartphone features. I like the dashboard. It

[33:11] binds me up by the rec track system

[33:12] that we use for recreation management. But I

[33:16] think, you know, the impressions that I got

[33:17] was the infield reporting and and the ability

[33:19] to use it out in the field in

[33:21] real time. Kind of exactly what we're looking

[33:24] through. That was a proposal. NNGIS questions were

[33:28] answered to me, but I think the integration

[33:30] of that was clear in that presentation. It

[33:34] seemed like they do have most municipal applications

[33:38] from their client reference sheets. I think without,

[33:43] I didn't make a note, I think I

[33:44] remember I don't believe they provided contact information

[33:47] for the references. Think it was available. Right.

[33:52] It's fine, but I think having those client

[33:55] references would be helpful to know who we

[33:58] can contact just to get some more feedback

[34:00] from them. Think from a budget standpoint, again,

[34:03] was in line with what we currently have

[34:05] budgeted for, but overall, very impressed, at least

[34:10] what we could see through their response. I

[34:13] like it it met our needs, and I

[34:16] really like some of the asset management as

[34:18] well as that infield reporting and kind of

[34:21] real time activity. But then I'll kind of

[34:24] take it over. Patrick? Yes, I agree with

[34:29] everything you said. And, you know, I spoke

[34:32] about them earlier. I completely agree. Yeah, I

[34:37] definitely had a lot of positive things when

[34:41] I was going through it with them as

[34:43] far as their chat capabilities look very user

[34:46] friendly. Their mobile systems, like the navigation is

[34:50] fully supported, but they also have these little

[34:52] modules. And they are like very easy to

[34:55] look at, you know, from the user's standpoint,

[34:58] whether it's following up with a work order

[35:01] or, passing it on, having to distribute that

[35:04] to the team or approvals. I thought the

[35:06] flow was very good and of course they

[35:08] do have the integration. Seeing it demonstrated would

[35:12] really prove helpful, very useful. I know we

[35:18] were looking for reporting and analysis capabilities that

[35:24] were going to be beneficial to the workforce

[35:27] to get right to what they need to

[35:29] do. The one thing I did not get

[35:33] from these were was whether or not the

[35:35] level of custom ability, you know, customization that

[35:38] we can implement. Mhmm. You know, being a

[35:41] SaaS or, know, hosted solution, we normally don't

[35:45] have access to the data. But the reporting

[35:48] tools that are utilized in order for us

[35:50] to be able to say, I need to

[35:51] create a report that you never thought of,

[35:54] or go through a cycle of working with

[35:56] you to figure out how do I design

[35:58] exactly what I need because you haven't thought

[36:01] of it yet. So that was like the

[36:03] only thing that kind of wavered. And I

[36:06] think looking at their presentation kind of brought

[36:09] that up in my mind to say, I

[36:12] should go back and look at it, what

[36:13] everyone has. Because that's an IT standpoint, that's

[36:19] something we come across to set. We like

[36:21] to have a little bit more hands in

[36:22] and controls rather than having package reports. We

[36:25] can actually go in and say, oh, what

[36:28] can we do with the report other than

[36:29] take the package item? So but overall, it

[36:32] was a very good presentation. So what you're

[36:35] saying is like having already pre done, ready

[36:38] to go reports or versus one that you

[36:41] want to create, like something specific. Right. Well,

[36:43] like you have pre, you have packaged your

[36:45] canned reports. They look great. They're perfect. Got

[36:47] it. But then you're saying, but there's some

[36:49] variable or something that I want to customize

[36:53] because now this is something that, you know,

[36:57] it's not a it's not a thing we

[36:58] can do in a CAN report because it's

[37:00] not available, but we can work with someone

[37:03] or we can have controls to do it

[37:05] ourselves. Tim? Touch on the negative airflow briefly,

[37:14] the references which you brought up, not like

[37:17] the contact information was not included. Yeah, we'll

[37:19] disclose later in consideration. That being said, they

[37:28] had a couple of extra things in there

[37:29] that I didn't see mentioned in the proposals.

[37:34] One is an asset risk score. This is

[37:37] in a realm of really a true enterprise

[37:39] asset management, again, that has many components. That

[37:42] last component is beyond the asset management, beyond

[37:46] the work order management, into how is this

[37:49] asset performing? We need to look at replacing

[37:53] this. I didn't see where we could provide

[37:56] information to some of these applications, provide information

[37:59] that you can use as backup for a

[38:01] capital improvement project. You say it did or

[38:05] did not? I didn't see where it did

[38:07] You mean in any of them, right? In

[38:09] any of them? No. If it's not in

[38:15] the specification to do that, then you're kind

[38:17] of searching outside of that range. We didn't

[38:19] identify that. It's a value added benefit. That's

[38:23] why I wanna make sure that that was

[38:25] laid out in the spec that we want.

[38:29] Not being restricted. Yeah, you can't really upgrade

[38:32] on it or evaluate on that. Should have

[38:33] the criteria that we have. Right. What was

[38:35] inside the spec? Well, I'm not really. Broader

[38:38] comment about that kind of application. So, straight

[38:41] to comment. The other was specifically mentioning to

[38:46] select the assets want more to create to

[38:50] work over from that DIS map. Any of

[38:54] these things, especially in terms of buried assets,

[38:56] such as saltwater, these things are not done

[38:59] for their ID in different locations. They don't

[39:01] go by an address. You may be saying,

[39:04] but this is the on the site. This

[39:08] thing here, I need to open up a

[39:10] work order against these one more features here.

[39:13] That was something that was in spec. I

[39:17] really recall seeing that really mentioned in the

[39:19] others, but I didn't find it mention it

[39:22] near specific. Again, I tried to go back

[39:26] and look at different things as I was

[39:28] reading through this. A couple of high points,

[39:31] a lot of that negative. Okay, so last

[39:35] but not least, Zeeling. Jeff, do you want

[39:38] to cover that? Comments, think from again, from

[39:52] a budget standpoint, I think it was a

[39:54] lot. We did have the, like we've got

[40:02] to mention before, I think it was format

[40:04] of as built focused kind of facility underground.

[40:09] So I'd be curious on some of the

[40:11] other things around that scope because I didn't

[40:13] really see a lot on asset management outside

[40:16] of buildings was the question that I got.

[40:20] They did have a mobile platform, which again

[40:23] seemed like it could be integrated with the

[40:25] field work. Municipal applications are minimal from what

[40:32] I can tell. They had a lot of

[40:38] like Department of Transportation, some counties, but I

[40:43] think it was more kind of building property

[40:48] maintenance. I wasn't sure on the, you know,

[40:51] kind of park applications, work order systems, things

[40:54] like that, but that was kind of my

[40:57] quick synopsis of that, but I know they

[40:59] were heavily focused on kind of as builds,

[41:01] but they did reference, you know, other other

[41:03] kind of maintenance type plans and it seemed

[41:07] to be pretty mobile friendly from what I

[41:10] could tell but again, I think all of

[41:11] that might be out to. Presentage. Yeah. So.

[41:18] I agree. So for me, with Z Link,

[41:21] they didn't mention chat capabilities. They did say

[41:24] they kind of support a workflow sequence. But

[41:27] they didn't mention like a unique work order

[41:29] numbering, you know, because that's really important, just

[41:32] using the system that even we have one

[41:35] of the things we were concerned with. It

[41:36] is GIS supported, but again, Tim expressed a

[41:39] lot of concern regarding their math and their

[41:41] actual asset. So another thing I had was

[41:47] they do support preventive maintenance, but they didn't

[41:49] really fully explain the automation. Automation is important

[41:52] for us because again, an AC needs to

[41:54] be automatically a work order should just be

[41:57] generated at six month interval, year interval, whatever.

[42:01] We need to be able to see that

[42:02] that's possible. Their search functionalities seem a little

[42:07] complicated. It doesn't seem user friendly. Their alerts

[42:10] are supported, but I need to see how

[42:11] the timelines work on overdue tasks. Their attachments

[42:15] can only be viewed web based versions and

[42:17] not easily accessible to staff performing work orders

[42:20] with mobile devices. Their mobile version is limited

[42:23] because the entire platform operates in a browser

[42:25] window that's mostly a common application for a

[42:28] desktop. So the handheld tablets and smartphones, while

[42:31] you can access it, it's not necessarily built

[42:34] for mobile, per se, visually, aesthetically for the

[42:39] end user. And then it doesn't support mobile

[42:43] navigation. So those are my concerns for them.

[42:47] The one thing you hit on was I

[42:50] did not see where the in IT, we

[42:55] call it responsive design. So even though you

[42:57] have a web based application and you want

[43:00] people to go to the web based application

[43:02] and they, oh, you can use it on

[43:04] a tablet or mobile phone, well, when I

[43:06] go to those other devices, I expect the

[43:09] interface to completely change and, work with my

[43:13] scale. A full screen website should come down

[43:17] to a half screen on a tablet, which

[43:18] should come down to maybe some modified menus

[43:23] and modules in order for me to operate

[43:25] it from a cell phone. You kind of

[43:27] want to see that consolidation of the design

[43:30] come in. Technical wise, I did like that

[43:36] from a programming perspective, like, okay, well, there's

[43:42] some good coding going on here, some good

[43:44] design, but then it's over complicated. It's pad

[43:47] drawings. That's what saying. For a project manager,

[43:49] yes, it's kind of cool to be able

[43:52] to see those drawings and that level of

[43:54] complexity is great for me. But for the

[43:58] users. But for the end user and the

[43:59] people that might be having to execute or

[44:02] initiate on a worker, they're going to look

[44:03] at this and go, I don't know what

[44:04] to do with this. I don't know how

[44:06] to operate around because it's a little bit

[44:07] technical or I agree. Tim? Yeah. Agree with

[44:14] that. Looks good. And, just to reiterate some

[44:18] thank you for, they've sort of got this

[44:21] growing focus. It's not really needed. It's an

[44:25] overlap with existing products. Not really spreading and

[44:29] branching out to what kind of the integration

[44:32] that we're talking about at this level. The

[44:36] references seem to be more limited in maintenance.

[44:41] And then there was one that was a

[44:42] little bit more broader that was matched here,

[44:45] but a lot of work necessarily is what

[44:48] was presented to us in the same kind

[44:50] of broad It is makes mention of managing

[44:57] drawings and maps, importing drawings and maps. That's

[45:01] not really the integration. Correct. That's the data

[45:04] here. So, with all that being said, I

[45:09] definitely want to recommend a presentation. I know

[45:12] we're probably in Houston and in agreement with

[45:15] that. What I'm gonna say is, it seems

[45:18] like you all went through very thorough, great

[45:20] job, you guys sat down and went through

[45:23] this process. It sounds like you have a

[45:26] lot of key points you want here. Done

[45:29] with that part, I think that maybe the

[45:31] next step you may want to recognize. I'm

[45:33] just recommending again your your guiding the process

[45:36] here, but you may wanna go to a

[45:38] ranking to see how everybody lays out, what

[45:40] you're thinking at this point. Mhmm. When you

[45:42] do an initial scoring, it can be the

[45:44] you know, and then you can look at

[45:45] the scoring and see what it lays out,

[45:46] if you all agree with it, and you

[45:48] can talk about do you want to shortlist

[45:51] or do you wanna bring them all back

[45:52] for presentations? Or if you feel like you

[45:56] want to bring them all for presentations right

[45:58] now, we need to close it down and

[46:00] bring everybody back in presentations. It's up to

[46:02] you. All right. That's what I was gonna

[46:06] ask Brian. I think maybe can we preliminarily

[46:09] score have a separate have a follow-up conversation

[46:12] and then determine who you operate for presentation?

[46:15] Yeah. Yeah, I think that's what I was

[46:16] saying. So we talk a little more in-depth

[46:19] about who might be top one, two, three,

[46:22] then if there's any major discrepancies, we can

[46:24] narrow those down. Yeah. That's what I would

[46:25] say. That's how I do the scoring right

[46:27] now, and let's see how it lays out.

[46:28] Mhmm. And then you go from there. Alright.

[46:32] I agree. That sounds good. You You want

[46:37] us to do it on the score sheet?

[46:39] Yeah. Yeah. You need a calculator, Jeff. I'm

[46:45] not doing that. Pulling too many. You got

[46:47] one score. He needs a calculator. Only four.

[46:50] There's only four. Give Jeff extra time. That's

[47:10] all good. Two of them. I really wanna

[47:11] make sure to When I see fair and

[47:15] effective. Overall, I'm good. Points. I need to

[47:54] go. You're an old, Jeff. You're an old.

[48:04] What happened once I hit you? Scores on

[48:41] the board is so exciting. It's like running

[48:44] a basketball game, hitting the scoreboard. It's really

[48:48] cool. Is? First time I've seen it done.

[48:50] It's pretty cool. Wow. Really surprised. Interesting there.

[49:10] I didn't think anybody would agree with me.

[49:14] Why do you say that now? Because everybody

[49:17] hates ITs response. Can you please just review

[49:41] the screen? Make sure that you agree with

[49:43] those numbers that match your numbers. Everybody's reviewed

[49:53] it. All agreed. That's the way it lays

[49:56] out. Yes. Thanks. Okay. We have, it's like

[50:00] smart energy systems or smart water, ranked number

[50:04] one, eight eight star. Number two, and you've

[50:09] got your, which is DVA mass group three

[50:12] and ceiling incorporated four. K. So when we

[50:18] first started our dialogue today, I I told

[50:20] you that this was '19. I also said

[50:23] that you can get a presentation. We're all

[50:25] available if you talk about wanting presentations. So

[50:29] I'd recommend I would recommend now to have

[50:32] a discussion in what we want to bring

[50:35] back in the presentations. One, and three. Four

[50:39] copies here. One, two, three. And one of

[50:42] the things I I want to let you

[50:43] know in presentations, you don't want companies to

[50:47] come back and reiterate what they put in

[50:50] their fault. That's not what we want. Mhmm.

[50:52] Okay? We want them to come back. We're

[50:54] gonna ask you as the committee. You talk

[50:57] about report. K? And then basically can versus,

[51:00] custom kind of reporting, but, you know, doing

[51:04] demonstrations. We're gonna ask for these things so

[51:06] that when they come, they're gonna have a

[51:08] tailored talking points, and that's what we really

[51:11] want them to really delve into. That's one

[51:14] of the things that will come with these

[51:15] presentations. Going to hone them down to where

[51:18] are things that you've talked about and didn't

[51:21] see those things. Where is that integration? How

[51:23] does that work? So we're gonna get your

[51:25] questions and we're gonna tell them to tailor

[51:27] to these talking points and not just basically

[51:30] reiterate the same thing over because there's no

[51:33] reason for that. So with that being said,

[51:37] how do you wanna proceed with who do

[51:39] you want to bring back the presentations at

[51:41] this point? You want to bring back? Four?

[51:45] Three? Three. I'd say since we all agreed

[51:48] that the we voted four on ZLink, that

[51:52] Z Link will be excluded. And then we

[51:55] go back and look at the ones where

[51:56] we're wavering between one to three scores for

[51:59] the top three. Everybody agree with that? Yes.

[52:06] Okay. The majority has basically the top three.

[52:09] So we'll right now, Seelink will drop them

[52:14] out. We'll bring the feedback from Inkstar, DBA

[52:20] Mass Group, and Smart Energy Water for presentations.

[52:24] So that being said, everybody agrees with that?

[52:27] Yes. Okay. That that concludes that part of,

[52:31] of the discussion. Next piece is, again, this

[52:35] is informational, we're gonna ask you to put

[52:40] your questions together. Do not cc everybody. Do

[52:44] it send it send it to your emails

[52:47] to Rebecca separately. You are in silence. You're

[52:52] in basically, I've heard the, you know, Sunshine

[52:56] Law has an ad hoc page, so you're

[52:58] not having discussions amongst each other. But so

[53:01] send those, and we're not having group chat

[53:03] and email or anything like that. So that

[53:05] way we're just sending those individually. What Rebecca

[53:08] will do is compile all those questions back.

[53:11] She'll send them each individually to you so

[53:14] you can review all of them, and then

[53:16] we're gonna send it out to the company.

[53:19] Send it out to the companies if there's

[53:21] anything in between that you feel redundant or

[53:23] whatever you can make comments to that but

[53:26] again what we're gonna try to do is

[53:28] hone this in so you had a question

[53:29] question or request yeah So it's for all

[53:33] of them, right? One big list for all

[53:36] of them, Okay. And then when they have,

[53:40] when they're doing their presentation, will we be

[53:42] able to have dialogue in case we have

[53:44] like an extra question? The presentation aspect is

[53:49] question and answer. That comes basically, that is

[53:53] when the time, like obviously today I said

[53:55] at the very beginning, thank you for attending,

[53:57] but we're not having that dialogue with you

[53:58] here. They were sitting here in the audience.

[54:01] A lot of times that's a very opportunistic

[54:07] people like, hey, by the way, can you

[54:08] tell me about this? That's not why we

[54:09] have that. We want to focus on them.

[54:12] Those are closed door meetings. They're publicly advertised,

[54:15] but they're closed door meetings. So basically, it's

[54:18] us having discussions with them. This information will

[54:21] be available once we conclude the whole process,

[54:23] but we want to give them the time

[54:25] to have that and again, there's a lot

[54:27] of information to go through so we're gonna

[54:29] have to think about time. We'll talk about

[54:30] that those elements in a few seconds as

[54:32] well, but we want to give them time

[54:36] to go through those talking points that you're

[54:38] gonna be talking about, and it sounds like

[54:40] he wants some demonstrations now. So that, you

[54:42] know, even if it's bringing stuff in, touch,

[54:45] feel, you know, if there's something on the

[54:47] left like that. Yes. You know, you gotta

[54:50] be specific on some of those requests. You

[54:52] know, as far as, hey, if you want

[54:54] to bring in a tablet, show us how

[54:56] it works on a tablet, bring in a

[54:58] mobile phone with the apps that we can

[55:00] do this, bring in these applications so that

[55:03] we can see a live environment that is

[55:05] really working in. Just keep in mind those

[55:07] questions when you put those down then they're

[55:11] prepared and they all know coming back these

[55:14] are the things we want. So did I

[55:17] answer your question? My question is in regards

[55:25] to so the my responses and things that

[55:28] I'll be asking for in the demonstration are

[55:30] going be based on the list of major

[55:33] bullet points of what we're looking for in

[55:35] there. When they come to do presentations, I'm

[55:40] able to ask questions that are maybe outside.

[55:43] Yeah, some follow-up things like that. Okay, okay.

[55:47] Right, it's not just you're not limited to

[55:49] those questions. Those are starting points. Those are

[55:51] really things that you want them to dial

[55:53] in. You're going to have, you know, they're

[55:56] going to do a presentation and they're going

[55:57] to get into a Q and A period

[55:58] of time afterwards. So, you're not going to

[56:00] be muted. And we can Right. Because I

[56:03] mean, obviously through demonstration, you're going to see

[56:05] something. And I might add like 50 other

[56:07] questions from what I just saw. Right. So

[56:10] again, like from past experience, what I've seen

[56:13] is giving them the time to let them

[56:15] go through and give them, you know, there's

[56:18] a dialogue where they want you to stop

[56:19] and let them to interject into it. It

[56:22] gets difficult, but we like to try to

[56:23] give them as a defined amount of time.

[56:25] We tell them forty five minutes, this is

[56:28] probably going be up to forty five minute

[56:29] presentation. Would imagine somewhere in a typically dummy

[56:33] if you could even that's a lot. That's

[56:35] a lot. Is it too much? Do you

[56:37] think for a presentation? Per vendor? Are you

[56:39] saying per vendor? Thirty minutes. Thirty minutes max.

[56:57] Me personally I think a thirty minute presentation

[57:00] followed by question and answer I think is

[57:02] probably sufficient and then you know I think

[57:04] we can narrow it down from there. So

[57:08] we'll do that we'll set up the three,

[57:11] we'll be contacting them and then setting out

[57:13] that you know we're gonna talk about dates

[57:15] in a second but we'll contact them we'll

[57:18] give them a first number to serve on

[57:20] basically who's available for time slots for that

[57:24] day but now we need to identify the

[57:26] date so and enough time to give them

[57:31] a you put your question and then be

[57:35] putting it together. Yeah if you want them

[57:40] here, like everybody, you want them here physically.

[57:44] Yes yes okay I think it's important for

[57:47] us to have a tablet have a smartphone

[57:49] see if we can figure it out I

[57:51] don't know if we can really capture that

[57:57] So I'll be Is that okay with the

[57:59] rest of the committee? Mean, do feel the

[58:00] same way? Yes. Somebody in front of you.

[58:03] No. No. No. We I agree with that.

[58:04] 100 course to your benefit. Right now, council

[58:07] is out to the summer after June. First

[58:10] meeting in June. They come back the July.

[58:16] June eighth and then the July. Right. So

[58:18] you've had a good period of time. So,

[58:19] I mean, if you want, not to say

[58:21] that you want to put you have some

[58:22] time before you leave, bring us to the

[58:24] next. Oh, I think the recommendation. I think

[58:26] they're all out of town actors too, I

[58:29] believe. Correct? I would imagine. I don't know

[58:31] whether I didn't look specifically at that. So,

[58:33] again, just take into consideration travel arrangements for

[58:35] them but also, first of all here, when

[58:41] can you get your questions to Rebecca? Rebecca,

[58:44] well, when you get that. So can we

[58:54] set up in here? Monday? Tuesday? So by

[58:59] the June 7, can you have all your

[59:00] questions to us? Yes. No. I can. Okay.

[59:03] We just wanna give you enough time. Again,

[59:05] June 7. Have more questions as far as

[59:10] a date for this? After the June 20

[59:13] for me. Okay, so we'd probably maybe look

[59:16] at maybe the July. Yeah. Mhmm. That's The

[59:21] second week in July? Sounds perfect. Yeah. The

[59:28] second week in July. Right, Joe? The twenty

[59:30] ninth. Either the sec the June and the

[59:36] July 2. Yeah. July probably works. Again, we

[59:39] wanna make sure that they have enough time

[59:41] to put everything together for how long do

[59:42] all that stuff. So, July would be how

[59:47] about twelve or thirteen? Twelve is a good

[59:52] day. Twelve is good. Yeah. Twelve? Very little

[59:56] bit more. Twelve? Yes. I'm very Of July.

[59:59] Right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's fine. Yes.

[1:00:03] Okay. Sounds great. After I we'd be looking

[1:00:05] for them to make the arrangement. Because you're

[1:00:08] on early morning for you. Mhmm. So, basically,

[1:00:13] very smart calendar. To have the demonstrations. So

[1:00:21] what we'll do is try to schedule those

[1:00:23] in the morning, get those knocked out, and

[1:00:25] then depending on their time on however Rebecca

[1:00:28] works this, we'll schedule a subsequent new committee

[1:00:32] meeting that day. So what we'll do is

[1:00:34] we'll go through along it, but it's gonna

[1:00:36] be in presentations, and then we'll move to

[1:00:40] a review committee following that. That becomes and

[1:00:43] that way we can make a recommendation and

[1:00:45] get everything Hopefully, we won't get it. It's

[1:00:48] fresh in your mind. Yes. You know? Well,

[1:00:49] yeah. You or Rebecca be providing lunch and

[1:00:53] breakfast? In large jelly sandwiches, I usually have

[1:00:56] great at making. If you're okay with those,

[1:00:58] I'll make the peanut butter jelly sandwiches. Aside

[1:01:00] from that, no. Okay. But, if if that's

[1:01:08] good, I think we further, anybody else anything

[1:01:10] like that? Alright. Let wanna go ahead and

[1:01:13] end the meeting. Thank you. Support your questions.

[1:01:18] But Rebecca, please. I'll need these back. Right?

[1:01:21] I do need your documents back. Thank you,

[1:01:23] Doug. Mhmm. And we're done.

ITN-RM-22-17 Review Committee Meeting

Transcript