Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,j. <br /> <br />... <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />fs0306 <br /> <br />CON F IDE NT I A L <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />Bob Hykan <br />Gene Jencsok <br /> <br />Ruth Yeager ~ <br /> <br />March 7, 1986 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />National Forests Reserved Rights Technical Studies: <br />Interview with KKBNA, Water Engineering Technology, and <br />Chadwick & Associates <br /> <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />an March 6, 1986, we interviewed a team composed of David Fleming <br />and Mur1and Packer of KKBNA; Chester Watson, Stanley Schumm, and Mike <br />Harvey of Water Engineering Technology (WET), and Rick Harner of Chadwick <br />& Associates. This interview was part of the selection process for <br />hiring experts to perform technical studies for the State of Colorado. <br />The following are my comments on the interview. <br /> <br />General <br />The proposed study team put on a well-orchestrated presentation, <br />and was well-prepared for the questions that we asked them. Of the three <br />firms, WET is the most crucial to the overall study, and its members came <br />across most strongly. KKBNA's role in the study is less clearly defined <br />(other than for the impact study), and Chadwick & Associates has only a <br />peripheral role. If we select them, it will be interesting to see how <br />great a role in the overall study KKBNA intends for itself. <br /> <br />I found their oral presentation much more impressive than their <br />written proposal, and would rate them well above Bishop, Brogden & <br />Rumph. Contract negotiation with them might take somewhat longer than <br />with either of the other firms since we would first need to get a <br />breakdown of subtasks and manhours within each task, and then review that. <br /> <br />Suitability as Expert Witnesses <br />In terms of credentials, the team members of KKBNA and WET all <br />appear to have had extensive courtroom experience. Based on their <br />presentation materials, I do not think that we need to be concerned with <br />the quality of the exhibits they would prepare for trial. As for the <br />oral presentations, I thought that the strongest person was Mike Harvey, <br />who came across as both forceful and knowledgeable. Schumm, Watson, and <br />Harner all gave good presentations and fielded questions well; I thought <br />that they would all make good witnesses. Packer did not come across as <br />particularly strong, but that may have been since his role in the <br />presentation was primarily that of coordinator. David Fleming appears to <br />have no clear role in the study, and I thought his presence was <br />extraneous. <br /> <br />