Laserfiche WebLink
Playground Equipment Selection Process and Update <br />Should this <br />be done again <br />Did you feel <br />Vendor numbers (3) <br />Was the time <br />in the future or what <br />the <br />What went Well? <br />Sufficient? Options.. <br />allocated <br />could be done to improve <br />process was <br />PREC Commissioner <br />What did not go so well? <br />(2 each) sufficient? <br />sufficient? <br />this process in the future? <br />fair <br />Did you like the end result? <br />Other <br />Jack Brunell <br />Megan Eischen <br />Kevin Fields <br />Jeanne Frischman <br />Larry Justin <br />The three presentations were fine and the <br />I think it may have been helpful for the three <br />Yes Options (2 each) <br />Yes. <br />Yes: see above <br />I thought this process was good use of <br />examples were helpful. <br />vendors to first ask the PREC members out <br />sufficient? Yes <br />response to <br />the Commission. <br />thughts and then have them present what <br />question #2. <br />they felt met our expectations (since we were <br />voting). One vendor that had "areas to hide" <br />may have changed his proposal if he heard <br />that was an issue (both of his had "areas to <br />Hide" for hide and seek games. <br />Mary Kunesh-Podeln <br />Vendors were well informed and friendly. <br />Yes <br />Yes <br />Yes <br />Fes <br />Yes - all vendors did a great job sharing <br />What about neighborhood <br />Project boards were done well.- <br />Could plans be sent ahead of time so <br />their plans and ideas - it was <br />input? <br />• Not the best way for vendors to display <br />that decision -makers could visit the <br />a hard decision. My 1st vote did not make <br />their plans while explaining (juggling the <br />park with more knowledge? <br />it (I thought a unique <br />project board while pointing & explaining) <br />Information of where playgrounds have been installed <br />style would give <br />standing in front of the podium. Maybe a <br />at other sites for decision makers to visit ahead of time. <br />Totem Pole a special identity) but all three <br />PowerPoint that can be projected? <br />were a win/win. Maybe <br />• It was helpful for the vendor who had <br />continuity of vendors <br />brochures to hand out. <br />and style makes <br />it easier to work with? <br />Abe McEathron <br />Seeing the different presentations was <br />I think even 2 vendors would have been <br />Time was good. <br />See #1 feedback. More discussions from the commission. <br />I don't know how <br />All were good designs and it will work. <br />I'd like a little more explanation on how <br />informative. 1 would have liked more <br />sufficient. <br />the tabulation <br />the votes were tallied. I assumed it was <br />discussion between members on the pros <br />worked, so I can't <br />through excell using a weighted average. <br />and cons between the different types and <br />say. <br />A little more explanation of how that <br />vendors. <br />works would have helped as well as <br />transparency with all the votes (without <br />names works to add anonymity). I would <br />have liked to have seen the excel sheet <br />Adam Parker <br />Brandon Stenglein <br />Mary Burg <br />I appreciate your asking about the <br />process to review the a large <br />purchase. I think the presentations <br />were great, but the time to take a <br />close look was to short for a close <br />thoughtful exam. <br />I:\Commissions - NEW FOLDER\PREC (Parks Recreation and Environmental Commission)\2015\Packets\2015.07.01\Playground Eq Selection Process <br />