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