PRRIP Governance Committee Meeting and Materials

Home Browse Search

? ISAC Selection Panel Smith offered a recommendation for the GC to seat a Selection Panel for the Independent Scientific Advisory Panel (ISAC). Strickland said ISAC will react to GC and their requests for review. He said one example might be to have the ISAC peer review the IMRP to see if it meets the Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) objectives, which was delayed at the start of the Program. He agreed that we need a general scope of work before moving ahead that would provide the ISAC a general framework for what its actions will be. The group discussed the suggested procedure from Smith and agreed to table further discussion until the following day. Procurement Polic_y Kenny said this is a draft policy and is not meant to be the full procedures manual. The policy is brief and general. The intention of the "Authority" section is to draw a distinction between disbursement of funds and procurements. The policy references the spirit and intent of federal regulations but doesn't incorporate the full text of those regulations. This draft policy does not cover: 1) land acquisition or 2) water. The "Competition" paragraph says only with exceptions will a non-competitive process be used, and if it is used a written justification will be required. The policy needs to better explain what "local" means. Ideally, it means that local contractors would be encouraged to participate in the Program; contractors in the three states/basin would be encouraged to participate in the search for providers. The "Thresholds" section is an attempt to establish thresholds for various levels of procurement intensity. Bleed said in addition to money amounts, there may be some situations where there is something • under $100,000 but that is controversial and the ED needs to let GC know what is coming up for Barels said he had not seen the Finance Committee (FC) in this document. The FC has a charter and expectations and maybe the GC should have Kenny work with the FC to put together a more complete document and then come back to the GC. In some cases, we might want other committees involved and every month there should be a reporting requirement at GC meetings. Kraus asked how sub-group and committee review of RFPs fits into this policy. Purcell said that advisory committees are not involved in money and that only the FC deals with money. Depending on what a consultant is doing, advisory committees help with selecting consultants This document is a draft based on one person's notes of the meeting. The official meeting minutes may be different • if corrections are made by the Governance Committee before approval. Page 6 of 10 bid in case the GC wants to have greater role in thinking that item through. Purcell said we should have a consultant selection process and then separate out a bid process. If we are doing a bid, we will end up taking the low bid. Consultant selection is a different issue because it is a value-based decision, so those need to be separate policies. We need to establish a threshold where we are comfortable with the ED handling a certain dollar amount or less; a second category of the GC being notified; and the third is the GC wants involvement and approval. Luecke noted that we are talking about both budget levels and policy issues so it's not just amounts of money but also policy. Kenny said that makes sense but that we need to figure out how to describe and specify that. Bleed said it might be important to just notify the GC that things are going out to bid and see if anyone wants to have more input. Purcell clarified that the group was really talking about the level of GC involvement in the consultant selection process. Bleed said it might be a low budget number where the ED just moves forward, but that over a certain amount the GC may want to be involved.