On September 24, the Rochester Conservation Commission met to review responses to their formal Request for Qualifications for a new peer-review consultant. The request for a new consultant came after longstanding review engineer for the commission, Henry Nover, announced his transition out of the review-consultant role.
Each member had the opportunity to review the applications sent by numerous engineering firms prior to the meeting. Of the applications sent in, the discussion centered on three top contenders for the position: BSC Group, Environmental Partners, and Horsley Witten Group.
Rochester Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon began by introducing the application put forth by BSC Group and some of the background of the firm. According to Farinon, the large team offered by BSC would provide a stable source of peer review that could likely meet the commission’s timeline. In addition, BSC is unique in that it offers a subgroup within the firm strictly dedicated to wetlands projects. As many projects within the Town of Rochester deal with wetlands regulations, Farinon felt that BSC Group could provide unique expertise in those types of projects.
A significant concern of the commission has been related to the amount of time required to properly review proposals put before them. With Nover working as consultant for so long, it will be difficult for the commission to develop the same trust and consistency with a new consulting group. The size of BSC Group may provide an opportunity to fill that void, as their application revealed that they have the manpower to consistently meet the needs of the commission.
The next firm presented by Farinon was the Environmental Partners Group. The submission from Environmental Partners noted that their firm has experience working with municipalities and is experienced with the commission’s kind of work. This suggests that they will be capable of beginning work immediately and meeting commission timeframes.
Chair Michael Conway explained Environmental Partners seems like an attractive choice, because they have experience working with surrounding towns. With that, many of their previous projects have related to solar developments similar to current proposals that the commission is reviewing.
One potential concern surrounding Environmental Partners is that their focus on civil engineering may impede their ability to effectively review wetlands projects. Conway suggested that this particular firm could be used primarily on civil projects with another firm being employed for projects related to wetlands regulations.
The final applicant to receive the board’s consideration was Horsley Witten Group. Of all the proposed consultants, Horsley Witten seems to have the strongest focus on the design and review of environmental projects.
Farinon explained that she has worked with this particular firm before and highly recommended them. She told commission members that of all the proposed applicants this firm has the strongest wetlands scientists. Commission member Lena Bourque also noted that the senior ecologist at the firm, Amy Ball, has been on the Board of Directors for the Massachusetts Association for Conservation Commissions since 2006 and will certainly have the experience to work effectively with the commission.
Vice Chair Daniel Gagne explained that one potential cause for concern related to the fact that the application only listed the senior members of the office. Gagne explained that, in reality, primarily junior members of the firm will be doing the majority of the work, and the exclusion of those members skews the strength of their resume.
After the presentation on all of the proposed firms, Conway suggested that each member of the commission rank their potential consultants to determine which engineering group was most favorable among the commission as a whole. The ranking revealed that Environmental Partners was the most favorable, with BSC Group second and Horsley Witten third.
As the commission has three upcoming projects on its agenda, a unique opportunity presented itself. The commission will assign one project to each of the firms and base its final decision on those results. Conway explained that the trial run for each firm will provide the commission with a more practical approach to determining which group works best for the commission members. The commission would then discuss their interactions with each firm over the course of their future meetings.
The next Rochester Conservation Commission meeting date was not announced at the time of the meeting.
Rochester Conservation Commission
By Matthew Donato