Laserfiche WebLink
<br />;; <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />bob 01 28 <br /> <br />CON F IDE N T I A L <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Bob Hyken <br />Ruth Yeager ~ <br />January 28, 1986 <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />Selection of Firms to be Short-listed - My Evaluation <br />National Forests Reserved Rights Claims <br /> <br />The following is the order in which I would rank the firms that have <br />submitted Statements of Qualification, together with brief comments. I <br />would suggest that we short-list four to six firms. <br /> <br />1. Simons & Li: they appear to be strong in all areas of concern, with <br />plenty of overlap in expertise. We should find out if Simons will be <br />involved. <br /> <br />2. Bishop, Brogden, & Rumph: they have already performed similar studies <br />for the State of Wyoming. We should talk to Sandy White about their work. <br /> <br />3. Boyle Engineering. They have a solid background in all areas of <br />analysis, though they do not have the particular renown in fluvial <br />geomorphology of Simons & Li. I have been very impressed with the <br />quality of their work for the Indian reserved rights technical studies. <br /> <br />--------------------------- <br /> <br />The next three firms all have impressive credentials in the technical <br />areas necessary for this study, but have potential problems in their <br />firms' organization. <br /> <br />4. RBD. The hydrology work - in particular the impact analysis - would <br />be subcontracted to W.W. Wheeler & Associates. <br /> <br /> <br />5. KKBNA. This firm, which tied for fifth place, achieved its strong <br />credentials in all areas through the combination of three firms, which do <br />not appear to have worked together previously. <br /> <br />5. Simons & Associates. Simons is of course extremely impressive, but he <br />is the only strong man in this small firm. If anything were to happen to <br />Simons, we would be left with nothing. <br /> <br />7. Woodward-Clyde. This firm appears to have a good background in the <br />important technical areas, though it lacks the "big names" of most of the <br />higher-ranked firms. Although they did not score as high in my rating <br />system as Simons & Associates, I would feel more comfortable contracting <br />with them on the basis of stability. <br />