Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Letter to Dean Massey <br />Comments on DRAFT Agreement & MOU <br />page 2 <br /> <br />If the Division is to use third party Contractors to collect <br />technical information to be used in finalizing Division opinions, <br />the Division cannot allow the operator to unilaterally terminate <br />third party services. This could allow an uncooperative operator <br />to "opinion shop" or to disrupt the process by terminating the <br />contract if a disagreeable opinion was forwarded. Therefore, I <br />propose a compromise. The operator may provide notice to terminate <br />the Contract, but in fact cannot terminate the contract until a <br />replacement Contract acceptable to the Division has been executed. <br />Finally, I do not believe it is realistic to expec;t a third <br />party Contractor to project a "contract price" in many of these <br />situations, particularly in this one. However, I also understand <br />the operator's reluctance to issue the Division a blank check. As <br />in the previous third party water quality monitoring contract, I <br />consider this agreement as "inventing the third party wheel". <br />Sincerely <br />James A Pendleton, PhD. <br />chnical & Scientific Coordinator <br />attachment: <br />cc: Larry Oehler, DMG <br />Jim Stevens, DMG <br />Bruce Humphries, DMG <br />Steve Brown, AGO <br />Anne Baldrige, BMRI <br />Alana Scott, BMG <br />DOC: M:\MIN\JAP\BMRI3RD.COM <br />JP/jP <br />