My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Habitat Study RFP Selection Process
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
Habitat Study RFP Selection Process
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:37:42 PM
Creation date
6/5/2009 2:16:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8461.600
Description
Request for Proposals
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
10/21/2008
Author
Jerry F. Kenny
Title
Habitat Study RFP Selection Process
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Correspondence
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
. <br />? <br />?- _ <br />F'LIkTYE RlVER <br />IIECOVEIIY IMPLEMENTATION PIIDGflAM <br />Octo6er 21, 2008 <br />JoelJorgensen <br />Nongame I3ird Program Manager <br />Nebraska Game and Parks Cocnmission <br />2200 N. 33`d Street <br />Lincolii, NE 68503 <br />I2E: Tern and Plover roraging IIabits Study RFP Selection Process <br />Dear Mr. Jorgensen: <br />Office of the Executive Director <br />3710 Central Avenue <br />Suite E <br />Kearney, NE 68847 <br />P11one: (308) 237-5728 <br />rzx: (3038) 237-4651 <br />This letter is submitted in response to your letter dated September 30, 2008 detailing concerns your pro- <br />posal team has regarding the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program's (Program) selection proc- <br />ess for our tern and plover foraging ]labits study RrP. <br />We appreciate your interest in this RFP and the proposal you submitted in response. As Ch1d Smith <br />(ED OfFice) discussed with Mary Bo.mberger-Brown during the debriefing at the end oFthe selection <br />process, your team put together a strong proposal 1nd competed well against other submissions. We ap- <br />preciated your responses to our requests for additional information and the time and eFfort you commit- <br />ted to the selection process. Your proposal was among the final two being considered, a testament to <br />your efforts given the competition. <br />As you are aware, the Proposal Selection Teain ultimately selected the other finalist, with the following <br />issues identi:(ied as areas of concern with your proposal: <br />You were identiiled 1s the Principal Investigator for your team, yet the proposal budget indicated <br />you had the least ainount of time committed to the ioraging habits study in comparison to Mary <br />Bomberger-Brown and Cr1ig Allen. <br />The amount ol time iclentiiied as being committed to the foraging habits study for you, Ms. Bomber- <br />ger-Brown, aud Mr. Allen as co-leads did not lppear realistic given the demands oPthe foraging hab- <br />its study. <br />In comparisort to tlie otlier f nalist, your team has less experience in tlle use of radio telemetry on <br />terns and plovers, 11app111g 1I1d 11111dI111g ti1TdS, 111d tfaCIC111g U1TCl I110V0111e11t5 1lld 1CtIVTt1eS 011 1 I1l'ge <br />river system.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.