My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
Agmt03 Koeller and Company
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agreements
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
Agmt03 Under $60K
>
Agmt03 Koeller and Company
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/28/2008 4:18:53 PM
Creation date
12/29/2003 9:21:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Agreement
Contractor Name
Koeller and Company
PROJECT NAME
water conservation program design
RMP File Number
304.5
Date
12/29/2003
Amendment
Yes
Box
6585
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
· Maximize cost effectiveness <br /> <br />· Minimize RWC staff involvement and risk exposure <br /> <br />To accomplish that, we will address and define the following issues as identified in the <br />RFP: <br /> <br /> · Responsibilities of RWC staff, program implementation contractor, and any other <br /> involved parties (e.g., plumbing companies) <br /> <br /> · Estimated program costs <br /> <br /> · Toilet choice issues (approved toilet "lists", etc.) <br /> <br /> · Marketing and outreach strategies to maximize customer participation <br /> <br /> · Cost-effectiveness considerations, such as level of financial incentives and <br /> possible program freeridership <br /> <br /> · Installation verification and program quality assurance <br /> <br /> · Liability and risk issues <br /> <br /> · Other practical issues and advice related to administration of such programs, <br /> such as: <br /> <br />,/ Implementation contractor(s) qualification and selection <br />¢' Plumbing contractor and plumber solicitation and selection (if required) <br />,/ Partnering with local retailers (if required) <br /> <br />In addition, the element of flexibility is crucial to the success of a program of the <br />magnitude proposed. That is, in the event that certain strategies work only for a limited <br />time or do not work at all, the program and its contractor must be flexible and adept at <br />testing and changing the program elements to adjust to a dynamic marketplace. <br />Therefore, we will suggest some approaches to monitoring program progress and to <br />incorporating RWC check and review points within the program implementation <br />schedule. <br /> <br />As required, the Task 2 plan will be readily adaptable as a scope of work within a RFP <br />for an implementation contractor. <br /> <br />Task 3 - Utility Subcommittee Meetin~ <br /> <br />The Utility Subcommittee meeting will be preceded by distribution of the draft plan to <br />Subcommittee members and others. Again, both Ms. Erbeznik and Mr. Koeller will <br />participate in the meeting and will review the draft plan and solicit feedback and <br />questions from attendees and other interested RWC staff. We expect that the meeting <br />will result in a series of suggested adjustments to the draft plan, all of which would be <br />addressed in Task 4. <br /> <br />Agreement over $10K 1 1 * Waived due to nature of work to be performed <br />City Attorney Approved Version 101003 Peter Igram, PWS Director <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.