All right. Thank you, everybody, for being here today. We're going to go ahead and get started. Good afternoon. I am Jeanette Farrell, Purchasing Manager and Meeting Facilitator. I would like to call to order this initial evaluation committee meeting for request for proposals. RFP number BLD-212-9654-P1, Security Guard Services for FLL and North Perry Airports for the Aviation Department. The time is now three minutes after 1 p.m. on February 18, 2026. This meeting is being held through Microsoft Teams. Representatives from the county are physically here in rooms GC430 of the Governmental Center Building East, located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, are virtually through Teams. Attendees, please mute the microphones on your devices to limit background noises. 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 RLI slash 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 determine the responsiveness and responsibility of the proposing vendors. Only those vendors that have been determined by the Evaluation Committee today to be both responsive and responsible to the solicitation requirements and are shortlisted may proceed to the final Evaluation Committee meeting for presentations and ranking. At the time of the solicitation deadline, 2 p.m. on November 7, 2025, nine proposals were received. Meeting attendance is recorded in the following ways. The Purchasing Division requires attendance of county staff physically here in room GC430. All virtual attendees, including county staff, please click on the link or scan the QR code that is currently listed in the Teams chat section to complete the signing sheet. For attendees that cannot access link or QR code in the Teams chat, email Purchasing Agent Carlene Grant at kgrant at Broward.org with the subject, EC Meeting Attendance, and indicate your name, your title, and the company you represent in the email body. The following are county staff, Carlene Grant, Purchasing Agent, Connie Mangan, Assistant Director for Purchasing Vision, Cesar Rossi, Project Manager, Aviation Department, Ricardo Abraham and Kaylee Rush, County Attorney's Office, James Voss, Office of Economic and Small Business Development, Colleen Pannell, Risk Management Division, and Kristen Rose from the Finance Division, Aviation Department. We have a quorum present with the following evaluation committee members. Committee members, please stay present after your name is called. Richard Abley III, Airport Manager, Security Division, Aviation Department. Present. Ted Buchanan, Chief of Staff, Port Everglades Department. Wanda Del Toro, Security Operations Manager, Facilities Management Division. Present. Freddie Lugo, Airport Manager, Security Division, Aviation Department. Present. William Willis, Chief Safety and Security Officer, Safety and Security Division, Transportation Department. Present. Thank you. It is the evaluation committee's responsibility to review the vendor's submittals to ensure solicitation requirements are met and to evaluate the submittals and make recommendations to award a contract. Each evaluation committee member was appointed by the county administrator to serve on this committee based on their experience. The evaluation committee members are responsible for following the county's established committee procedures to select vendors which provide the services that are in the best interest of the county. At the discretion of the board, evaluation committee members may be requested to substantiate their recommendations and discuss their submittal reviews. In accordance with Broward County Procurement Code, each evaluation committee member must affirm that they are free of conflict of interest as provided by Part 3, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes and the Broward County Employee Code of Ethics. All evaluation committee members and the project manager assigned submitted the required Broward County disclosure forms and responded that they can be fair and impartial to all vendors. The cone of silence has been in effect since this solicitation's advertisement. Vendors are prohibited from discussing this solicitation with the commissioner's office, county staff, or a member of the evaluation committee. The cone of silence terminates when the awarding authority takes action which ends the solicitation. During the cone of silence, inquiries regarding this solicitation should be directed to the purchasing manager or the director of purchasing and or his designee. I'm sorry, to the project manager or the director of purchasing and or his designee. All vendors may communicate with designated representatives from the Office of Economic and Small Business Development at any time regarding the solicitation of small business enterprise or county business enterprise participation. The summary of vendors' rights regarding Broward County's competitive solicitations was issued in the solicitation. At this time, the purchasing agent will report the findings on responsiveness and responsibility and identify if any exceptions were taken to the county's terms and conditions. Good afternoon. Proposals were received from the following vendors. Fognac Diversified Services, Inc., American Guard Services, Inc., Chieda Security, LLC., Covenant Aviation Security, LLC., Global Security Consulting Group, Inc., Intercon Security Systems, Inc., Tyrean Security Services, LLC., Unified Security, LLC., and Universal Protection Service, LLC., DBA Allied Universal Security. Is now exiting. The director of purchasing waived the following technicalities or irregularities in accordance with the procurement code. A Fognac Diversified Services, Inc. did not submit a physical bond or alternate bid security as required, but provided an electronic copy indicating intent to comply. Refer to the Waiver of Technicalities or Irregularities Memorandum for additional details. Intercon Security System, Inc. did not submit a physical bid bond or alternate bid security as required, but provided an electronic copy indicating intent to comply. Refer to the Waiver of Technicalities or Irregularities Memorandum for additional details. The solicitation had six responsiveness requirements involving compliance. Number one, bond requirement. Number two, criminal history screening practices certification. Number three, domestic partnership act certification. Number four, living wage requirements. Five, lobbyist registration certification. And six, pricing requirements. The Director of Purchasing recommends that seven vendors be deemed responsive to all the responsiveness requirements. The following vendors are deemed non-responsive for the following. Chayata Security LLC was non-compliant to providing the bid bond as indicated in instructions to vendors and bid bonds, performance and payment bonds, and surety qualification requirements. Refer to the responsiveness and responsibility matrix for additional information. The solicitation had seven areas of responsibility requirements. One, affiliated entities of the principals. Two, financial information or financial ability. Three, insurance requirements. Four, security agency license class B. Five, litigation history. Six, office of economic and small business development program requirements. And seven, workforce investment program requirements. Four, vendors provided the required documentation for evaluation committee's review for responsibility. The following compliance concerns were identified. A Fognac Diversified Services, Inc. did not meet the 25% CBE participation goal. Refer to the Director of Purchasing Memorandum for additional information. American Guard Services, Inc. did not meet the 25% CBE participation goal. Refer to the Director of Purchasing Memorandum for additional information. And finally, Unified Security, Inc. did not meet the 25% CBE participation goal, nor did they provide a surety bonding company letter or proof of license at the time of submission. Refer to the Director of Purchasing Memorandum for additional information. Tyrant Security Services, LLC did not provide proof of license at the time of submittal. Refer to the Director of Purchasing Memorandum for additional information. And finally, Unified Security, LLC provided financial statements that were incomplete and did not provide proof of a license at the time of submittal. Refer to the Director of Purchasing Memorandum for additional information. The solicitation required vendors to state whether they accepted Broward County's standard terms and conditions or if they did not accept them to identify the agreement provisions and vendors' proposed changes. Three vendors accepted the county's standard terms and conditions without exceptions. The following vendors took exceptions to the county's standard terms and conditions. The Fognac Diversified Services, Inc., Global Security Consulting Group, Inc., Intercon Security Systems, Inc., Tyrant Security Services, LLC., Unified Security, LLC., and Universal Protection Service, LLC., DBA Ally Universal Security Services. The specific exceptions taken by these vendors are identified in each submittal and will be addressed prior to presentations if the vendor advances at the final Evaluation Committee meeting. This concludes Purchasing's remarks and is presented for the consideration of the Evaluation Committee. Thank you. Thank you. The next order of business is to determine vendors' responsiveness as defined in the Procurement Code, Section 21.40A. Is there any discussion from the Evaluation Committee regarding the determination of responsiveness? Hearing none, may I have a motion with respect to the responsiveness of the vendor's submittals? Could you, Peg, please turn the mic on. Yes. Thank you. Peg Buchan. Second, I would like to make a motion to find Chiada Security and Unify Security as nonresponsive to the solicitation responsiveness requirements. Second. Do I need to keep going? Second. Oh, pardon. I'm sorry. Five bar. May I. Okay, I have a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries unanimously. To clarify, we are adopting the recommendations from the memo that was just referenced and read by Carlene. That is correct. Thank you. Okay. Now, may I have a motion to determine the responsive bidders, responders? May I ask a question? Yes. It was, in the memo, it addresses the non-25% compliance as a concern. Yes. Does that necessarily mean that the individual is nonresponsive? Or does, how do you handle that? So, the vendors who did not, they didn't meet the goal, the goal was a part of their responsiveness, which means they needed to comply with that. So, there are vendors that did not meet that goal, so they are not responsive. Okay, so it is more than a concern, it's a non-responsive. Yeah, it is a matter of non-compliance to the solicitation, which would make them non-responsive. So, per the OESBD memo, just to clarify, OESBD looked at all the information provided to vendors with an opportunity to meet the goals by providing vendors that they did an agreement with that would be their subs, or they could provide a letter of good faith effort showing that they tried to and they couldn't. In that case, OESBD would have complied. But, based off OESBD's determination, they determined that those vendors that were listed that did not meet the goal, the 25%, they did not meet the 25% goal, nor did they show any good faith effort. Thank you. So, they're non-compliant to OESBD. That being said, would you like to modify the responsiveness, the non-responsive? So, the OESBD requirement is responsible versus responsive? Correct. So, you're looking for a motion for responsible at this time? Correct. That's the first question. We're responsiveness. Right. Yeah. Yes. Right now, we are still on responsiveness, correct? Yes. So, we're going through this process right now, absolutely. So, that's what we're discussing right now is whether or not the vendors, any of them, would be deemed non-responsive. The pending motion that was on the floor was with regards to which vendors again? But, to go back to repeat the rest, Chiada Security and Unified Security were non-responsive to their bid bond, which was second, was the motion was made and second. So, those were non-responsive. Now, we need a motion to determine those vendors that are responsive, that make the responsiveness. Okay. Which, by process of elimination, would mean by reviewing the rest of those that were submitted. Right. So, I would need someone to read in to make a motion to read in the record those vendors that are determined to be responsive. I'd like to find Afoknak, American Guard, Covenant Aviation, Global Security, Intercom Security, Arian, and Universal Protection, DBA, Isla Universal. May I have a second? William. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. The next order of business is to determine the responsibility of vendors as defined in the Procurement Code, Section 21.40B. Is there any discussion from the Evaluation Committee regarding the responsibility of vendors? Hearing none, may I have a motion with respect to the responsibility of the vendors? If you have any questions, feel free to always ask with this process. So, I'll make a motion. Peg Buchan, I would like to make a motion to find Afro-Neck Diversified Services, Inc., American Guard Services, Inc., Chiada Security, LLC, Tarion Security Services, LLC, and Unify Security, LLC as non-responsible. First, Ablee. Second. All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. May I have a motion now to determine those vendors that were found to be responsible to the solicitation? William. William. William. May I have a second? Wanda Del Toro, second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Lastly, the next order of business is to determine the vendors that were found to be both responsive and responsible. May I have a motion with respect to the vendors that were determined to be both responsive and responsible? Security. So, let me, right. We want, let me repeat what we are. We are looking now to define those vendors that are determined to be both responsive and responsible. Okay. So, you can start over. Thank you. William Willis would like to motion to connect by service. I think it's covenant global. Aye, Mr. Willis. I know this process also tricks me every time. So, you're going to have to follow with the check marks that we have in the sense of, you know, which those that were responsive and those that were responsible. Now, we want to confirm the intent of the committee that those are the ones that were both deemed responsive and responsible. So anyone that has a non-responsiveness or non-responsibility associated with them are going to be out. Peg Buchan. Okay. I would like to make a motion that the following companies be deemed both responsive and responsible. Covenant Aviation Security, LLC, Global Security Consulting Group, Inc., Intercon Security Systems, Inc., and Universal Protection Services, LLC, DBA, Allied Universal Security. May I have a second? Freddie Lugo, I second that. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Okay. So looking, we are now at the portion where we can decide for the EC members to decide basically the shortlisting. The Director of Purchasing recommends shortlisting in accordance with the Procurement Code, Section 21.42. The Evaluation Committee may once shortlist vendors and then score or rank only those shortlisted vendors, or two score and rank all responsive and responsible bidders, responders. Shortlisting is based on evaluation committees, evaluation of vendors, entire submitters, including responses to the evaluation criteria. Is there any discussion regarding shortlisting? Okay. So let me say again, you can make a decision to shortlist, or you could just choose to move forward with those that were determined to be both responsive and responsible. Peg Buchan, I'd like to make a motion to go forward with the four vendors that were found to be responsive and responsible. May I have a second? Wanda Del Toro, I second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. We will not be needing to shortlist anyone because we're moving forward with the all responsive and responsible vendors. The final Evaluation Committee meeting will be held on Friday, March 6, 2026 at 10 a.m. and will include vendor presentation. Evaluation Committee members and project managers, are there any topics or questions you would like the vendors to specifically address during their presentation? Please note individual questions may be asked to specific vendors during the question and answer period and do not have to be topics or questions to our vendors. If yes, when you are acknowledged, please state your name, then your topics of the questions. Okay. Richard Ablee? Yes. Richard Ablee, I would like the following to be addressed in the presentation. What is the specific experience in providing security services at a Category X airport? Airports in general to include general aviation while operating under federal, state, local directives, specifically 49 CFR Part 1542. Second on that, at these airports, how many contracts have been renewed and for how long? I would also like, in the event of emergency or special coverage to be addressed in the presentation, how long would it take you to increase staffing, increase to the contract by an additional 20 officers, 50 officers, and 100 officers? These numbers should factor in criteria for a certified and trained officer, excluding the airport badging process. Third question, to explain or illustrate how each company processes inspections, incidents, or general data to validate the compliance requirements already specified, and which technologies are used to produce those bad data. Babe, you can't? I do not have anything specific. Okay. Thank you. Juana del Toro? Yes. Transition plans, I would like to see them really down and specific as far as how they manage, how they're going to conduct this transition. Their recruitment process, do they have staff on board to transition to this project or to this recruitment? Training experience, especially for internal trainers, whether they have them internally or they subcontract it out. And the management process for monitoring the guards and the locations and the posts. I'm trying to see them get into the weeds about that. You? Brady Lugo? Yes. I would like to see additional commentaries sort of earlier about staffing continuously. What are, I want to see a detailed plan that outlines search staffing requirements and ability to furnish those person should be reiterated, including the badging process. Thank you. William Willis? Yes, I'll apologize for some of our reports provided under electronic scanning hard copy process. I think it was accountability measures. Additionally, training type of training officers. Of course, officers. Thank you. The evaluation committee establishes the length. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Cesar, do you have any questions that you would like? I don't have to. I apologize for that. Can I ask, um, I'm sorry? Yes. I have time to go over there. Go ahead. Also, if the armed guards are part of this process, then their drug and alcohol program need to see the drug and alcohol program. Okay. If there are no armed guards, then it's not relevant. But if they do have armed guards, you have to see their drug and alcohol program. All right. Thank you. The evaluation committee establishes the length of presentation. This time does not include the unlimited question and answer period. Is there any question regarding the presentation length? Typically, we do 15-minute presentations followed by unlimited Q&A. Richard Abley would like to make a motion for 15 minutes. Second. I'd like to second that. Freddie Lua. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. And as established, each vendor will have 15 minutes for their presentation, followed by unlimited questions and answer sessions. All vendors will have up to five minutes to set up their presentations in Teams. At this time, the purchasing agent will use a random list generator to determine the order of presentation. This can be reviewed on the screen. The presentation order is, first, Intercon Security Systems, Inc., second, Universal Protection Services, LLC, DBA Allied Universal Security, third, Covenant Aviation Security, LLC, and fourth, Global Security Consulting Group, Inc. Thank you. Committee members, is there any other business that needs to be discussed today? We would like to thank all the vendors that responded to the solicitation. We appreciate your time and interest in working with Broward County. The time is now 1.34 p.m. This initial evaluation committee meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.