Appendix F - Public Consultation Documentations - Utilities Kingston

Technical Memorandum 4:Liquid Train TechnologyDecision Making Process• The decision making process was completed during a workshopheld on June 28, 2012 . The attendees included:• Utilities Kingston: senior management, project managersand operation staff• Consultants: J.L. Richards & Associates Limited and XCGConsultant Limited• A decision matrix was created during the workshop, whichconsists of the evaluation criteria, alternative scoring andweighted scoring.1. The evaluation criteria were established and assignedweights. They are weighted between 1 and 15 points toreflect the significance to the City and the plant operationstaff.2. Each alternative was assigned a score between 1 and 5under each evaluation criterion, defined as follows:• Score of 1 – Does not meet criterion/negativeimpact/highest cost• Score of 5 – Meet criterion objectives/positiveimpact/lowest cost3. The weighted scoring was revealed and a total score foreach alternative was calculated.4. A sensitivity analysis was completed for the top rankedalternatives under various criteria weight change to confirmthe selection.• The alternative that receives the highest score is the preferredalternative. The alternatives are ranked by score from thehighest to the lowest below:1. Alternative 4(a) BAF2. Alternative 4(b) BAF and CAS3. Alternative 3(a) MBR4. Alternative 3(b) MBR and CAS4. Alternative 1 CAS6. Alternative 2 IFAS