[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.