MAI Canada, Ltd.

. This proposal was the overall best Proposal submitted. It clearly
and concisely addressed all of your requirements identified in
the request for proposal. Several good municipal references were

given.

MAI was ranked first overall and must be considered as a poten-
tially suitable supplier.

Syrja_& Marler Associates Ltd.

This was a good quality Proposal. It did not address your stock
control or word processing requirements at all. An impressive
list of municipal clients was quoted. However, the firm and all
of its clients are in the Province of Alberta.

If the firm was a local firm it may well have been ranked second
Overall. However, because of’ the potential difficulties of properly
servicing your needs from a remote location, this proposal must
be considered unacceptable.

Systematics Consultants Ltd.

This proposal is for application software only. No information

was provided for your word processing requirements. Only one
municipal client reference was given. This reference was to an
installation in progress. This is a small firm with little overall
background experience. The software proposed is to run on IBM
equipment identified in a separate proposal. from IBM. See comments
for ISS Ltd. ‘

In view of this, this proposal is considered unacceptable.

Tri-Data Services Inc.

This was a poorly prepared proposal which lacked some "product
briefs" at the time of submission. These "products briefs" were
delivered twelve days late, No municipal reference clients were
given by the firm. The software development was proposed tc be
done by a third party sub-contractor with one municipal reference.
Mainly on the basis of low hardware costs their proposal was
ranked second.

Should the first ranked proposal be rejected, thenthis proposal
should be given further consideration. ,

Thorne Stevenson & Kellogg