I muted them all. Good afternoon, everyone. We apologize for that technical issue. We had two different meeting links, and we were in another meeting, a very lonely room. So here we are in the Microsoft Teams room with the meeting ID 244. Anyone that's in the other meeting, which was meeting ID 246, is being directed over to this meeting. So I appreciate your patience, and we're going to get started. Good afternoon. I am Christine Shorey, Senior Purchasing Manager and the meeting facilitator. Wait a second. I don't know if this was muted. Can we repeat what you said? Because I was not muted here, but I think it was muted up here. Can you repeat? Good afternoon, everyone. I am Christine Shorey, Senior Purchasing Manager and the meeting facilitator. We want to express our appreciation for this technical issue. We had two different meeting links, and we were in a different room. So we've now joined the correct room, which is meeting ID 244, which is what was on the Sunshine Notice. I would like to call to order this initial evaluation committee meeting for request for proposals number PNC-213-0373-P1, Architectural and Engineering Consulting Services for Port Everglades. For the Port Everglades Department, Seaport Engineering and Construction Division. The time is 1.52 p.m., and today is November the 7th, 2025. This meeting is being held through Microsoft Teams. Representatives from the county are physically here in room 430 of the Governmental Center Building East that's located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, or they are also attending virtually through Teams. Attendees, if you could please mute the microphones on your devices to limit the 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 the meeting is to determine the responsiveness and responsibility of the proposing vendors. Only those vendors that have been determined by the Evaluation Committee meeting, sorry, by the Evaluation Committee today to be both responsive and responsible to the solicitation requirements and further shortlisted may proceed to the final Evaluation Committee meeting for presentations and ranking. At the time of the solicitations deadline, which was 2 p.m. on August 14, 2025, 11 proposals were received. Meeting attendance is recorded in either of the following ways. The Purchasing Division records attendance of the purchasing staff that are physically here in room 430. All virtual attendees, including county staff, if you could refer to the participant panel and click on the link or scan the QR code, that's listed, I'm sorry, that's listed in the chat section and complete that sign-in sheet. And for any attendees that cannot access the chat link or the QR code, if you could email the Purchasing Assistant Manager, Nancy Olson, at nolson at brower.org, using the subject EC Meeting Attendance. Indicate your name, your title, and the company you represent in the email body. The following are the county's project staff. Matthew Harold, Project Manager, Seaport Engineering and Construction Division. Nancy Olson, Purchasing Assistant Manager. Ricardo Abraham and Antonio Lozada and Fernando A. of the County Attorney's Office. Olga Shiner of the Office of Economic and Small Business Development. Norma Jean Dimitriev of Risk Management Division. And Leah Brasso of the Port Everglades Finance Division. We do have a quorum present with the following evaluation committee members. Committee members, if you could please say present after I call your name. Cesar Galliano Franco, Construction Project Manager, Seaport Engineering and Construction Division, Port Everglades Department. Present. Thank you. Norman Shorts, Expansion Project Administrator, Planning Division, Aviation Department. Present. Thank you. And Michael Goodman, Construction Project Manager at the Parks and Recreation Division. 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 a recommendation 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, the evaluation committee members may be requested to substantiate their recommendation and discuss their submittal reviews. The cone of silence has been in effect since the 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 will terminate once the awarding authority takes action to end the solicitation. During the cone of silence period, inquiries regarding this solicitation should be directed to the project manager or to the director of purchasing and or his designee. Also, vendors may communicate with designated representatives from the Office of Economic and Small Business Development at any time regarding the solicitations, small business enterprise or county business enterprise participation. The summary of vendor rights regarding Broward County competitive solicitations was issued in the solicitation. In accordance with Broward County Procurement Code, each evaluation committee member must affirm that they are free of conflicts of interest as provided by Part 3, Chapter 112 of the Florida Statutes and the Broward County Employee Code of Ethics. All evaluation committee members and the project manager have submitted the required Broward County disclosure forms and responded that they can be fair and impartial to all vendors. At this time, the purchasing agent will report on the findings of responsibility and responsiveness and identify if any exceptions were taken to the county's terms and conditions. Ms. Olson? Thank you. Proposals were received from the following vendors. B.E.A. Architects Incorporated. Bermelo Adjimil and Partners, LLC. Biller Reinhardt Engineering Group, Incorporated. Bowman Consulting Group, LTD, Incorporated. Chen Morin Associates, Incorporated. CPZ Architects, Incorporated. D3B, LLC. Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC. Salts Michelson Architects, Incorporated. DBA, Salts Michelson Architects. SGM Engineering, Inc. The Tamara Peacock Company of Architects of Florida Incorporated. DBA Peacock Architects. The solicitation had two responsiveness requirements involving compliance. Criminal History Screening Practices Certification and Lobbyist Registration Certification. Their Directorate of Purchasing recommends that all vendors be deemed responsive to all the responsiveness requirements. The solicitation had six areas of responsibility requirements. Affiliated entities of the principals, financial information, financial ability, insurance requirements, license requirement, litigation history, and Office of Economic and Small Business Development Program requirements. All vendors provided the required documentation for evaluation committees review for responsibility. The solicitation required vendors to state whether they accept Broward County Standard Terms and Conditions or, if they do not accept them, to identify the agreement provision and vendors' proposed changes. Nine of the 11 vendors accepted the county standard terms and conditions without exceptions. The following vendors took exceptions to the county standard terms and conditions. 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 remarks and is presented for the consideration of the evaluation committee. Thank you. The next order of business is to determine vendor 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 submittals? There's an example motion for the committee members on page 7. Maybe I'll go back to the director of purchasing, recommends that all vendors be deemed responsive to all of the responsiveness requirements. If the EC has any questions, I'm happy to help. Otherwise, it looks like Mr. Schwartz is ready to push the queue. May I have a motion with regards to responsiveness? I would like to make a motion to find all, I guess, all of the following vendors as responsive to the solicitation responsiveness criteria. Okay. And when you say all, were you going to list all of them, or do you mean all responding firms? The purchasing division's recommendation is that all firms from all 11 responses are found responsive. The list of firms for your reference is page 4 of 6, or if it's all 11, you could just say all responding firms. You say all responding firms at this time. Thank you. So the motion on the table is to find all responding firms as responsive to the solicitation requirements of responsiveness. May I have a second? Aye. Michael Goodman second the motion. Thank you. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Thank you. That motion passes unanimously. The next order of business is to determine the responsibility of the vendors as defined in the Procurement Code Section 21.40B. Is there any discussion from the Evaluation Committee regarding the responsibility of the vendors? Any discussion? Any questions? Otherwise? Yes. Norman Schwartz, I'd like to put forth a question. Sure. Based on the criteria, were all the people submitting supposed to put every one of their subs into the proposal and list them if they were required by different disciplines? Let me understand the question. Were all proposing firms required to list all of their subs? Yeah. Specific subs at this time? Yes. In the proposal, they would have listed all of their team, their entire team. Yes. Including potentially any that were participating toward the goals. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. So looking for a motion with respect to responsibility of the vendors, and for reference, there is a sample motion on page 8. And if there was a motion, not suggesting there is, but why you have a sample of a responsibility motion and a non-responsibility motion, I'm sorry, a responsible motion and a non-responsible, and you had a sample similarly for the responsive and non-responsive, is if for some reason there was a bifurcation of responsible versus non-responsible, we gave you an example of each. So again, the sample motion is on page 8. I, Norman Schwartz, would like to make a motion to find the Tamron Peacock Company as non-responsive to the solicitation responsibility requirements under the, I guess, do I need to list the matrix or no? If I could just refresh. So responsiveness was the motion we took, and all firms were found responsive. So all proposing firms are now in the category to determine responsibility. And there were certain responsibility requirements, and that's in the matrix, and Ms. Olson just went over all of those. I believe that there were no issues of responsibility. So if you'd like to restate your motion or clarify your motion. Well, I would clarify it then just to say that I would like to make a motion to find all of the following vendors, and that's all 11, as responsible to the solicitation responsibility requirement. Okay. Thank you. The motion is all of the 11 proposing firms as responsible to the solicitation responsibility requirements. May I have a second? Aye. Michael Goodman second the motion. Thank you. All those in favor, say aye. Thank you. And that motion passes unanimously. Okay. The next order of business is to determine the vendors that were found to be both responsive and responsible. I'm sorry. I lost my place. So all firms have been found responsive. All firms, all 11 proposing firms have been found responsible. So now we're moving on to the shortlist recommendation. The director, and I just want to refresh your memory, the solicitation indicated that the intent of the county is to award to one vendor. The estimated contract value is $5 million over five years. And the director of purchasing recommends shortlisting in accordance with the procurement code, section 21.42, the evaluation committee may, one, shortlist vendors and then score or rank only the shortlisted vendors, or two, score and rank all responses. In accordance with the procurement code, section 21.44, procedures for CCNA services, states that the evaluation committee shall establish a shortlist of vendors for further consideration of award of the solicitation unless the director of purchasing determines that shortlisting would not be in the best interest of the county. And finally, in accordance with Florida statute for consultants' competitive negotiation act, there shall be no fewer than three responsive, responsible vendors evaluated. However, the evaluation committee determines the final number of vendors to shortlist. Shortlisting is based on the evaluation committee's evaluation of the vendor's entire submittals, including responses to the evaluation criteria. Is there any discussion from the committee regarding shortlisting? What we're going to be looking for is a motion with regards to the shortlisting as it relates to the number to be shortlisted. So I don't know if you want to discuss what number you'd like to come up with. You can turn on your mic so I can hear you. Thanks. Feel free to discuss. I would shortlist down to three as a recommendation. I would be okay with three as well. I second that. Okay, so now I'm going to make the formal motion. Or you're going to make the formal motion. I, Michael Goodman, would like to make the motion to shortlist three vendors to move forward to the final evaluation committee for presentations and ranking. I, Norman Schwartz, second that. Thank you. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Thank you. That motion passes unanimously. So now, committee members, we're going to update a ballot for you and get that over to you. But let me read a couple things first. So the number that is going to be shortlisted is three of the 11 firms that were found responsive and responsible. The evaluation committee is now going to shortlist the vendor. The evaluation committees are going to be emailed a ballot link to select from the 11 the three that are to be shortlisted. Once all committee members submit their shortlist ballots to purchasing, I'll briefly recess the meeting to allow purchasing time to tally the ballots. And when purchasing notifies me that they have completed the tally, I will reconvene the meeting and purchasing will then read the shortlisting results. Are there any questions before we pause for your ballot? No questions? Okay. Committee members will have they received their ballots? Thank you. So I'm just going to go on mute for a minute. And Mr. Schwartz, you're not on mute. If everyone can stay on mute for just a minute while they conduct their ballots. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thanks for your patience. The shortlist ballots have been submitted and we're now going to take a recess. Time is 2.18. Just a moment and we'll tabulate these ballots. Good afternoon. It is 2.25. I'd like to reconvene the meeting. Before we announce the results, I want to have the committee members refer to the agenda script, page 4 of 16 and 5 of 16, which is a listing of all of the 11 proposing firms that were found responsive and responsible. The ballots that were received from the EC members did not indicate the EC members' individual name on their ballot. And so therefore, we're now going to request that each EC member verbally validate their selections. That's why I'm referring you to that page 4 of 16 and 5 of 16, which list all of the firms. And we can go through each EC member. Mr. Schwartz, do you want to go first? If you could just verbally validate your three shortlisted selections, please. The three shortlisted are Bermelo, the second one is Chen, and the third one was D3B. Thank you. I'm just going to repeat that. Norman Schwartz's selection for the three firms was Bermelo, Ajamel, and Partners, Chenmore and Associates, Inc., and D3B, LLC. Is that correct? Correct. Thank you. Mr. Franco, if you could give me yours. I did shortlisted B.E.A. Architects, Bermelo, Ajamel, and Partners, LLC, and Chenmore and Associates, Inc. Thank you. So, Mr. Galeano, Mr., sorry, Cesar Galeano-Franco's selection is B.E.A. Architects, Inc., Bermelo, Ajamel, and Partners, LLC, and Chenmore and Associates, Inc. Is that correct? Correct. Thank you. And Mr. Goodman, finally, if you could give me yours, please. I shortlisted B.E.A. Architects, Bermelo, Ajamel, and Partners, and Chenmore and Associates. Thank you very much. So, Mr. Goodman's selection was B.E.A. Architects, Inc., Bermelo, Ajamel, and Partners, LLC, and Chenmore and Associates, Inc. Thank you all very much. So, now we will display and announce the scores. Ms. Olsen, the shortlisted vendors, please. The shortlisted vendors are B.E.A. Architects, Inc., Bermelo, Ajamel, and Partners, LLC, and Chenmore and Associates, Inc. Thank you. Thank you very much. May I have a motion to accept the name vendors as those shortlisted? Aye, Norman Schwartz. Motion to accept the three for shortlist. Thank you. May I have a second? Aye, Michael Goodman. Second the motion. Thank you very much. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. That motion passes unanimously. The final Evaluation Committee meeting will be held on Monday, December 1st, 2025, at 9.30 in the morning, and will include vendor presentations, Evaluation Committee members, and Project Manager. We're going to go through each of your names, and as I call on you, if you could identify any topics or questions that you would like the three shortlisted firms to specifically address during their presentations. And please note, individual questions may be asked of you to specific vendors during the question and answer period, and they do not have to be topics and questions that all vendors have to include in the presentation. So, Cesar Galliano-Franco, do you have any specific presentation topics or questions to be included? No. Thank you. Mr. Schwartz? Seawall restoration. Seawall restoration. Okay. Anything else? No? All right. Mr. Goodman? I have no questions. Thank you. And Mr. Harrell, do you have anything particular you'd like them to include in the presentation or any questions you'd like them to address? No. I just wanted to ask Norman for a clarification. So, you just want their experience with seawall restoration? Is that... Well, in general, seawall restoration and reconstruction. No. I have nothing. Okay. And to clarify, Mr. Schwartz, experience in seawall restoration and construction? Thank you. All right. Committee, you have another chore. Now we have to establish the length of the presentations. The time does not include an unlimited question and answer period. First, you can discuss amongst yourselves, well, openly, any discussion about the proposed length of each of the vendors' presentations. They'll all be uniform. Whatever many minutes you select, each vendor will have that time. So, you want to discuss with your mics on, please? Mic's on. 15 minutes is appropriate amount. 15 minutes, then 30 minutes is question and answer. 15 minutes, yeah. Right. The question and answer isn't limited. It's unlimited, actually. So, what you're discussing is how many minutes for each of the three vendors' presentations. 15 minutes. Yeah. 15 minutes. All right. So, now, formally, may I have a motion to set the presentation length? Yes. Norman Schwartz would set the length of the presentation to 15 minutes. My motion. Thank you. May I have a second? I second the motion. Michael Goodman. Thank you. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Thank you. That motion passes unanimously. As established, each vendor will have 15 minutes for their presentation, followed by an unlimited question and answer session. And vendors also will have, before the 15 minutes, five minutes to set up for their presentation in the team's meeting. So, now, the purchasing division is going to use a random list generator to determine the order of the vendors' presentations. We're going to present that on the screen in just a moment. So, she's inputting the three shortlisted firms, which was BEA Architects, Inc., Bermelo, Aja Mellon Partners, LLC, and Chen Moore & Associates, Inc. She's going to share the screen, and then she'll run the random list generator to determine the order. One moment. She's generating the order now. Ms. Olson, if you can, or. The order of presentations is as follows. First vendor, Chen Moore & Associates, Inc. Second is Bermelo, Aja Mellon Partners, LLC. And third is BEA Architects, Inc. Thank you. Committee members, is there any other business that needs to be discussed today? Okay. No. Thank you. We would like to thank all of the proposing firms that responded to this solicitation. We appreciate their time and interest in working with Broward County. The time is 2.33 p.m. This initial evaluation committee meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you.