in fort lauderdale florida or virtually virtually through teams attendees please mute the microphones on your devices to limit background noise this is a public meeting and is being recorded by broward county the video recording will act as the official recording of the meeting the recording will be made available on the purchasing division website under the rli rfp repository information reviewed by the evaluation committee as part of the evaluation process will also be posted on the repository this meeting has been publicly noticed the purpose of this meeting is to continue the final evaluation committee meeting for ec members to review the preliminary scores announce final results and rank the responsive responsible and shortlisted vendors meeting attendance will be recorded in the following ways the purchasing division will record the attendance of county staff physically here in room 430. all virtual attendees including county staff please click on the link or scan the qr code that is currently listed in the team's chat section to complete the sign-in sheet for attendees that cannot access the link or qr code in the team's chat email the senior purchasing agent melissa cuevas at me cuevas at broward.org with the subject ec meeting attendance and indicate your name your title the company you represent in the email body we have a quorum present with the following evaluation committee members many members please say present after your name is called amanda simmons construction project district manager parks planning and design section parks and recreation division present lewis felize capital program administrator highway and bridge maintenance division public works and environmental services department present thank you normal data capital program administrator highway construction and engineering division public works and environmental services department present thank you rebecca martinez professional engineer traffic engineering division public works and environmental services department present thank you committee members have completed and submitted their preliminary scores the preliminary scores were tabulated and the meeting was subsequently recessed to allow additional time for review at this time the purchasing agent will provide a brief overview thank you upon tabulation of the preliminary scores by the purchasing division no outliers were identified in an abundance of caution and to ensure the accuracy of the calculations additional county staff was engaged to conduct a comprehensive review of the formulas this review confirmed that the formulas were functioning correctly and that no outliers are present per the criteria which includes 25 above or below the mean score or above or below the standard deviation at this time we will review each vendor score sheet individually and provide evaluation committee members the opportunity to discuss any items if needed before we begin to review the the preliminary scores i will review a couple of key reminders the evaluation committee members may verbally revise their preliminary scores based on committee discussions provided the member states the rationale behind any adjustments the committee the recommended score column in the excel spreadsheet reflects the mean or average score for all criteria because there were no outliers if an outlier was identified the median would have been reflected although there are no identified outliers the ec may still discuss or ask questions of the other ec members regarding their scores purchasing can you share a score sheet bear with us for just a moment we're having a little bit of technical difficulties there we go okay we will now review preliminary scores submitted by the evaluation committee members going vendor by vendor in alphabetical order starting with cdm smith is there any discussion from the evaluation committee members on the scores that you see for example there's evaluation criteria number one to be i'm sorry so for example on evaluation criteria number two b amanda simmons has a score of 16 which is a little so if maybe if amanda could just explain what she was thinking with her scoring the question 2b was question that was that was the question on is this right planning project development designing construction of traffic and signals and roadway intersection complete streets etc i gave them low scores primarily because on where we were asking about roadway intersections complete streets and school zones they basically just explained what complete streets was it wasn't any kind of here's how we plan on accomplishing anything here's our experience it was just here's what complete street means here's the definition so i i took some points away from that um and they sim they said did something similar with the traffic signal system and the atcs basically just reiterating what was already in the solicitation and what those terms mean it wasn't here's our experience any other discussion right so on question number three that was their past performance so if you look at their evaluations that the county has uh performed in the since 2020 so in the past five years they had one where they were listed as conditionally recommended for future work and that was with water and wastewater that was a recent one then we have two final evaluations for water and wastewater with one again saying it's conditional that they would award them another contract and then they had a comment vendor is weak on permitting and agency approvals and then um on the vendor references there were some responses where they said they were not not responsive in completing work on time and under budget and then when it came to their references one was a study for ftep from 2021 to 2031 which means that it's a fairly new project so uh they were and they were listed as satisfactory for turnover and then it wasn't within budget so it was hard to evaluate them on a contract that was recently awarded that still has another six years on it uh there was also a project for state road 704 which is still in the planning phase so it's hard to determine how they're doing on that because they haven't gotten to construction there was a newly awarded general engineering contract for fdot district 7 which is still not complete and they were listed as satisfactory in cooperation with the authorities having jurisdiction so i didn't give them as many points for those reasons yeah thank you explanation is greatly accepted so from here if if there's no further discussion if everyone is happy with or wants to leave their points the way they are are that would be appropriate alternatively if someone wanted more discussion or wanted to make an update to their points that would also be appropriate or a motion to accept so again the recommended score column is reflecting the mean right now it's also fine to make a motion accept that or to make a motion to accept whatever criteria you guys expect or uh no further discussion is needed uh may i have a motion for final consensus score for cdms meeting is normal data we'll need clarity on what your motion what you would like to accept is the final consensus score can we meet the mics i would ask that anyone in the team's meeting please mute so for example you could make a motion saying i'd like to make a motion to accept all the recommended scores as listed as the final consensus score alternatively you could say i'd like to make a motion to accept the recommended scores for all criteria except for such and such criteria i'd like to make a motion to accept the mean or however you decide to make the motion you could say i'd like to make the median for all whatever you decide but you guys need to tell me what you want to do or tell us what you want to do as your final recommended score or your final consensus score you need to excuse me turn on your microphones so we can hear you i think it should be the mean since it's the average and do that for all the questions we hope we are happy with the mean average score so you know we so um you would like to make a motion to accept the mean score for all criteria yeah i would like to make a motion to accept the mean mean for that cdm smith score the mean score for our criteria as the final consensus scores yes and that's for cdm smith yes may i have a second luis velez second the motion all in favor say aye aye aye any opposed motion passes unanimously we're now going to move on to the score sheet for cts engineering and this gives you an opportunity to to review the scores and discuss any of your scores or other evaluation committee members scores okay then i need a motion i amanda simmons make the motion to accept the mean average score for all criteria for cts engineering inc we have a second i second the motion all in favor say aye aye aye any opposed motion passes unanimously we're now going to move to the vendor marlin engineering is there any discussion by the evaluation committee members on the scores that you see on the screen looks like all the numbers are very similar okay definitely no outliers here um then i would need a motion to accept either the recommended score the mean score for you know all criteria if that's what you're saying as the final consensus scores for marlin engineering i normal that i would like to make a motion for marlin engineering to take main average score for all the criteria we have a second luis velez i second this motion that's what he said i'm sorry luis velez i second the motion okay all in favor say aye aye aye any opposed motion passes unanimously we're going to move to metric engineering okay again review the scores there's any discussion this is your time to discuss b question 2b was about the planning project development design and cei of traffic signals roadway intersections complete streets etc for the second question which was regarding roadway complete streets and school zones uh their response was just we follow the same traffic analysis approach as previously described key elements you you move from intersection only analysis to corridors the key component to consider is the area of influence and that was just their response i didn't think it was comprehensive enough i thought they answered the 23 uh question number 2a much better but that question 2b i wasn't satisfied with the response i mean how would you see that you scored seven is about planning project development on stormwater and bridge improvements i gave them um seven oh seven yeah um it i did was not happy with their response to bridge improvements their only response was during the planning and project development phase we will evaluate all design alternatives with a focus on prioritizing bridge enhancements that was the response whereas all the other vendors gave a much more detailed approach to how they handle the bridges what are some of the issues that they come up with um when they're analyzing the bridges and how they're going to evaluate them research uh different means and methods we are going with the mean if you could speak closer to the microphone i suggest uh going with the mean for this vendor yeah ruiz velez i would like to make a motion to accept the mean for all criteria of the final consensus score for metric engineering inc may i have a second rebecca rebecca martinez i second the motion all in favor say aye aye aye any opposed motion passes unanimously we're now going to move to the score sheet for rs and h evaluation committee members do you have any discussion on the scores that you see here and then again you yes put uh past performance 15 um out of 20 any on which question the three question number three yeah yeah past performance oh past performance okay right all right um it had to do with let's see vendor references um one of the vendor references was about pump stations and seawalls in hollywood and they only received a satisfactory on whether it was uh within budget and then also satisfactory for staff turnover one of the uh references was for let's see a new diamond interchange that one was fine but they were oh they were listed as satisfactory on that one as well i was looking at the budget budget and whether projects were completed on time or not and on two of the vendor references they received no the event the uh projects were not on time and in budget so are you saying that the evaluation say that they didn't complete the premium time or within budget or it wasn't unchecked that's correct and now what criteria one criteria one since they didn't provide a um organizational chart i dinged them on that because i couldn't tell who was on the team and what their roles were it was clear who was on the team from rsnh but i it was very difficult to determine who their uh sub consultants were and that was the same reason i have a lower score for the vendor as well okay is it possible to show us the past performance uh like she said that on the can we open up the files to see what files do you want to see do you want to see the submittal is that right yeah because you say that uh some of the past performance uh somebody scored um so that would be in the that would be in director memo sorry i just wanted to be fair no that's okay we will pull it up yeah yes melissa turn on your mic so you can explain what this are the vendor past performance evaluation posted in the repository right it was a vendor reference not a performance evaluation start with the first one um if you could turn on normal if you could turn on your mic thank you yeah amanda you can point out where you see those uh i would like to see there's one that previous one yeah there was a satisfactory on that one project completed within budget and then turnover they stay there same with this one project completed within budget satisfactory yes normal if you could turn on your microphone thank you so your your point is they didn't get an excellent correct you scroll that last one those were the references that was all of them because some of them had five there was one vendor that had five well that was all for rsnh there's none below that one i'm satisfied i saw that i need to see thank you okay then could i have a motion to accept either the recommended scoring or the well i was gonna make a motion to uh revise my score for question number two c and bring it up to an eight that's my only change okay then could i have a motion so the reason for the change was based on just reviewing what i already discussed my my uh my uh you're the references and points yeah my process and okay then i need a motion to accept luis velez i would like to make a motion to accept the recommended the mean score for all criteria at the final consensus score for rs and h inc may i have a second and emerald data make a second all in favor say aye aye aye aye aye any opposed motion passes unanimously to ensure that the adjustments were tabulated correctly and determine vendor ranking we will take a very short recess final scores and ranking will be announced after the recess the time is 1 29 pm and we are in recess i would like to reconvene the meeting the time is 1 34 pm and we are back from recess the purchasing division completed the tabulation of final consensus scores and will announce final scores and ranking before the results are announced i'd like to thank all the vendors for your participation in this solicitation process we appreciate your time and interest in working with broward county purchasing please announce the scores and the ranking thank you the total score for cdm smith inc is 83.5 cts engineering inc 94.25 marlin engineering inc 87 metric engineering 87.5 rsnh inc 81.5 the number one ranked firm is cts engineering the next order of business is it acceptance of the scoring and ranking may i have a motion to accept the evaluation committee's results and recommend recommendation of ranking for approval i normal data would like to make a motion to accept the evaluation committee's results may i have a second luis velez i second the motion all in favor say aye aye aye any opposed motion passes unanimously the evaluation committee recommendation will be posted on the purchasing division's website for three business days as a proposed recommendation of ranking following this three-day period if no objections to the proposed ranking have been received in writing by the director of purchasing a final recommendation of ranking will be posted for five business days if no vendor timely objects or protests the ranking shall be final provided that no county commissioner objects within five business days after reviewing notice from the purchasing division of the final ranking once a ranking is deemed final the county shall commence contract negotiations with the number one ranked vendor as a reminder all information reviewed by the evaluation committee is posted on the purchasing division website repository including the closed portions of the meeting committee members is there any other business that needs to be discussed today again i would like to thank all the vendors that responded for their particip for their presentations and i'd like to also thank all the evaluation committee members for their participation the final evaluation committee is adjourned and the time is 1 38 pm thank you all very much