Hey, good morning, committee members and other parties of interest. The Evaluation Committee meeting for R-C-M-A-R 26-00264, the Construction Manager at BIS Services for the South County Drinking Water Facility Project, will be held in part by means of communications media technology. Active participation will be for committee members only. Provisions have been made for any member of the public desiring to have access to view the meeting. My name is Sybil Tucker. I am the buyer for this project, and for the record, this meeting is being reported and has been publicly noticed. At this time, I ask each committee member to introduce themselves for the record and beginning with the committee chair. Good morning. My name is John McCary, the Planning Section Manager for the Law and Resources Department. I am the committee chair. My name is David Lundberg. I'm Assistant Section Manager in Plant Operations. My name is TJ Black, Section Manager for Plant Mechanical and Facility Maintenance. Thank you all. So the committee will evaluate, discuss, and score by consensus to proposals or received in response to this project. His proposal is to be evaluated based on the information provided in their proposal as it correlates to the requirements and evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation only. Criteria 3. Criteria 3. The CMAR firm's approach to project delivery for a maximum of 20 points. And criteria 4. The CMAR firm's recent, current, and projected workload for a maximum of 5 points for a total of 100 points. So as the committee chair will lead the discussions after each category is discussed and the final process scores scores, consistent scores, consistent scores arrived at, I will just reiterate that score and record the score on my score sheet. And at the conclusion of the scoring, I will verify those scores with the committee and I will provide the ranking at that time. So at this time, I'm going to go ahead and turn the meeting over to John at the committee chair to begin the discussions. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Good morning, everyone. Appreciate it. I won't belabor the introduction, but I think as myself and the team here, we spent a lot of time getting to know the firms over the last two weeks. And I realize that some ways I feel like it's four families and three are about to disappoint. So I'd rather, you know, make sure, you know, quite frankly, that we talk through these items and show what we're thinking and make sure that we give the best information and the best scores for those listening and for us internally to, you know, that we feel like we've done the best we can to move forward. My preference, Sybil, I think you might have said this would be, I'm open if you guys feel otherwise, would be to go through each category. So not one firm score, but to go through each category with all four firms and then go to the next category. Are you guys good at that? Yeah. Okay. And so I'll spend, you know, probably certainly on the first one, I'll spend more time, you know, maybe introducing some of the background and why, how, how I felt to maybe slot the firms going through each of the criteria. So criteria one, ability, CMR firm and its professional personnel. As I was going through this, so I want to, again, I'm going to give kind of an introduction to how I did all four scoring, but that's for all four before getting the individual score. Went through and determined if I felt they should, which categories they should be in and then see if there's any differentiating factors within the categories. And when I say the categories, I mean, scoring range is the highest, second highest, et cetera. And there's, you know, I appreciate, you know, having four very good submittals, not making our, our job easy. As I was going through this category. So this one being the ability to CMR firm and its professional personnel, you know, trying to refine where it could differentiate groups. The criteria, I know this was part of what was, was sent out in the, in the, in the submittal packages. Part of what I wanted to look at was provide a description. I'm reading this right off the portions of the scoring criteria, provide a description of team members experienced in the same role on similar relevant projects. Let's see here part of that same next with them, provide similar relevant projects, other projects using a collaborative delivery method. The team members have worked on in the same role, include the start and finish dates and where it gets proposed proposer shall highlight past successful collaboration of proposed team members in similar roles. So now we'll get into Archer Western specifically this group through my notes specifically. Um, I had them in the highest category, their team members served in very similar roles across multiple projects. They submitted on their resumes and in the second part with the larger experience with the firm, um, whereas not only did the group have experience with each other, but they had experience in the same roles on similar projects. So from project manager, construction manager, superintendent, um, we'll set out projects where that same group work on the same projects together. So I will, uh, so I'm not doing all the talking, uh, I proposed them in the highest category and I had them with a score of 33, 33 out of 40. Yeah, I should, by typically I should say, I will see how it shakes out. I'm usually one of the harder scorers. So I'm, you know, I realized it's the highest category. I'm not rarely give a top score for anything, but I, yeah. But I looked at them, I also liked the fact that they had numerous projects in the state of Florida and also in the south area of General Texas and Georgia. Um, I agreed with, they had a lot of people in the same projects and I had given them a 32. Yeah, that's where I was at, 32, so, same. Okay. Um, Sybil, before we move on, do we, do we do consensus scoring for all four at the end or do you want to block in before we go to the next? Um, we've locked it in now. Okay. Um, shockingly, I'm the, I'm the highest. Usually that's not the case. Uh, no, I'm good with consensus score of 32. Yes. That's still highest category. Still. So everyone in agreement with 32 is the consensus. Yes. Okay. I will, um, move on. Well, we all have the same with Archer, Western, Keywood, MWH. Yes, I'm going to do this for, uh, all right. I'm going to start on one. So I'm going to move on to Keywood. Um, also, you know, it's going to be a common theme. Very, very good team. Um, I have similar comment. Many, many of the same personnel, uh, have worked together, you know, specifically the Prospect Lake project, um, where the project manager was either, there's, I guess, two different parts on here. It's on the resume, project manager, assistant project manager. What project was that? Prospect Lake. Okay. Number two. Um, reconstruction manager, same role, construction manager, service superintendent on, um, on that. Uh, also just generally many of the same personnel have worked on other projects together. Um, although not necessarily in exactly the same role. So I had a slight differentiation with, uh, score because of that, you know, the highest category I had them at a score of 31 relative to the previous proposal. The previous was 33 when you had, uh, archer. Yeah. 33 and then we had the consensus 32. Yeah. For this one, I saw that number two project like Prospect Lake had the majority of the team members. Then it kind of fell off a little bit after that, uh, they did look like they had three C-Mart projects that they worked on together, uh, Colorado, Texas, and California. So I had given them a 30 out of 40. Yeah, I, I had, um, just kind of looked at how many C-Mart projects they had in the, uh, team members, um, resumes there. And much like the, yeah, the same kind of thing. I saw the 31. I guess it's what, two 31s and a 30. One and a 30. Three category counting. Which is, you know, right at the, for us, between the two, what was the highest versus second highest range? They definitely have enough resources to provide services that hits into the 31 to 40 category. Y'all both felt like they were definitely in the top tier. I did. Yes. Okay. No problem doing that range. All right. So we are going to the civil with a 31 for concern. I will move on to, uh, MWH constructors. So, um, sure. Um, a couple of things I noted. One is their, their specific project manager being new to the firm has less experience with the firm, um, with the, the people on the team relative to some of the others we've reviewed. Um, that's had one year with the firm, 21, 20 overall. Yeah. And I, I have just for some, some key things about the overall team, the project executive, construction manager, construction, QA, QC manager indicate they worked together for more than 20 years. Um, but it wasn't necessarily evident where this specific team, uh, worked on, uh, these projects together or worked on projects together. Um, they, this, this probably come up in other sections too. But I appreciate they is, as part of their approach, they also, um, looked at, uh, had it in this section, but where they listed out likely subcontractors by scope. Um, but focusing specifically on this team, I had them in the second highest category. Um, again, like I said, primarily the, the, it wasn't evident where the PM has worked with any of the other team members. I did note there was a city Tallahassee project where several of the key people worked on it, but has also completed, uh, prior to the last 10 years has completed in 2015. So, um, I had proposed a score of 27. Yeah. When I looked at that one, it's same for the CMR project manager. I mean, had some years of experience being new with the firm, but I had four other projects listed from 2010, 2015, and 2016 that they'd listed. That was number four, five, six, and seven, um, I'd, I'd get them, uh, 28 is what I'd scored them at out of 40. I actually get my 29, um, mostly based on the fact that everybody's got multiple CMR projects on their belts. Um, I think that counted 31 CMR projects in the, uh, resume. Yeah. I mean, let's kind of state the obvious. We're, we're scoring four exceptional firms, all with people who have lots of experience. So we're trying to split hairs between, in my opinion, that's the key thing was how well the team was working with each other in similar roles. And that's, that's going to end up palliating it with a hierarchy. Uh, it's not so much about anybody's individual resume, but more about how that. So at 27, 28, 29, that is all in the second category. Uh, I am, I will propose a consensus score of 28. We're in the same range. Yeah. We're good with that. Yes, sir. 28 is your consensus. Yes. Okay. So similar, we were just discussing with, with, um, previous firm, a lot of CMR experience. Um, um, it does appear some of that, and they, they, to where I struggled with looking at the resumes, it wasn't as obvious where they listed projects that they had worked on in similar roles together. Um, there was a table in there that talked about how many projects this group really has worked on together, which I assume means they probably worked together with different firms. Uh, wasn't as obvious in what roles they worked with together in those, with those other projects. Because when I look through the resumes they submitted in the, in the, in the projects, which were submitted as part of the second part, um, there was some of the personnel, like some of the staff identified, but just not, wasn't as evident as like the, the first two where they were project managers and project manager, construction manager was the construction manager, and they had similar, you know, roles as what they're proposing for this. Um, because of that, I had them, uh, slightly less than the first two, my proposal was a 29. I thought they had the most CMR experience out of all the groups, even though not many of them are local, they only listed one from Florida, and that was one of our internal, um, I did like the resumes I saw with them, and just the overall experience of the size of the projects that they had worked on, but I had given them a 32. That's, that's, that's kind of where I was at, is it just lots of experience with the SMRs, you know, I gave them a 31. Okay, so I'm the outlier in the lowest category, and I'll tell you, I swear, but I think it's good to talk through. I really struggled with this because when you're listing them out in the, in their roles, um, the question about, you know, similar roles, similar projects, it was more difficult. However, in my notes going through, you know, the project manager listed 10 CMR projects, pre-construction manager involved in 28 CMR projects, construction manager involved in eight CMR projects, there's clearly tons of experience. experience. So, um, I, yeah, so, all right, so I'm convinced, um, we need to consider them with that experience in the, in the higher category. What you, you were, I'll leave it, maybe one of you guys proposed a consensus where you're 31, 32, 32. I was the outlier at 29. So if we're going into the higher category, um, it looks like for the first, I guess the, the question becomes, do we differentiate them in some way between the first two, which are 31 and 32 in the highest category? That's where I feel like with the amount of projects they've done, they were in the upper echelon of that, of those teams that was submitted in the proposals that I read. Okay. Okay. The complexity of the projects, which is my opinion. So how do you guys do it? So we have 31 and 32, do we go? I'm good with 32. Or higher, 32. So 32 would be the same as, uh, the first one, Archer-Western-Archer. Yeah, I'm good with that. How do you feel? I'm good with 32. 32, first consensus score. Everyone agrees with 32? Yes. Archer. So, uh, so we'll move on to- Criteria-2. You guys want me to keep- Yes. Introducing? Yes. You guys tired of hearing me talk? No. All right. I wish criteria number two, CMR firms experience with projects of a similar size and type. Um, you know, my notes, just a couple of highlights that, you know, as if we're introducing this criteria, uh, preference to be given to projects using CMR, um, or other collaborative delivery methods, methods with the GMP, um, projects similar type scale with complexities, uh, wastewater water facility, and a hook with a hundred million dollar value or greater, uh, pump capacity, 15 GD or greater. Uh, one of the, I won't list out all the criteria, but one of the things that I, you know, TJ, I think you already touched on it, but as we're going through these and tried to look at were they, the request was projects, um, eight recent preferably within the last 10 years. Um, and, yeah, already highlighted with the, you know, something with, with GMP and ideally projects, at least, uh, few of which have been completed in the last 10 years. And I know there's some that are ongoing. Um, all right. So Archer Western, um, list out all the, the, the ones I, you, I started to highlight, uh, the Peace River project, um, but I'll list for it quickly. I won't maybe go through this each time. Uh, the Tampa Bay desal, uh, Lockhart, our treatment plan expansion, Hernando County and Lake Tarpon outfall crossing listed those out. They, um, mainly because they had, um, not only because the firm has a good project resume, but because they had key project members who were working on those. I said, at least, uh, key team members worked on between two and four of those listed. Um, I had them speak to it. I did indicate, and I tried, I really went back and I know you guys touched on this. Maybe this is a point that we'll pop through. The criteria didn't specifically list Florida projects. So I tried not to be, um, I tried to balance what experience they had with Florida projects, recognizing the teams are here in Florida with the fact that we didn't say list out a bunch of Florida projects. So I had them at a score of 28. And also had them listed in the green field, which is preferred, um, that they had completed probably five of the Leonard wastewater treatment plan. Uh, so I was kind of looking for some green field experience also through these packages or submittals. Uh, I had listed them as a 27 because you pretty much hit on all the notes that I have of how many projects certain members had worked on together. Yeah, that's exactly where I was looking for the green field and I ended up with a 27. And what were you rad Johns? I was 28. Um, that's a welcome difference to not be the one who's always scoring lowest. Um, I'm unless I convinced you otherwise to come up. I'm 27 still in the highest category. It's, uh, I mean, I, I said this before, but I'll reiterate these are, there's a handful of firms in the country who had put resumes together like this in most of that handful submitted on this project. So it's, you know, we're really trying to split hairs and. Um, the 28 would put them two points in the efforts here. Okay. Yeah. I need to more. We talk through these here and other people's perspectives. I'm good with that. 28. And since score 28, 28, 28. Um, I listed a couple of Florida projects. I won't, I won't go through and list out. I mean, they, you know, you guys have in front of you and like I said, there's these firms have listed really good projects. I, you know, there's, um, the one I did highlight here first was, uh, actually the one in Golden, Colorado. Um. Was it CMR or just projects? It was CMR. It was Greenfield 75 and GY treatment plant, uh, 400 plus million dollar contract value. Um, you know, reality is we can, we can, uh, there, you know, go back to, yes, there, there were projects listed in Florida as well. Uh, we didn't specifically have that as own criteria. And these are national firms with national capabilities and really good national resumes. So I don't, uh, having said all that, I proposed the same score as I had for Archer Western at 28. I actually had them in a 29 since they had the Greenfield in there. That's a 28. Thank you, Dustin. All the projects. I like it. Fine with the 28. So if we had two 28, 29, I've proposed a 28. Are we good with that? You were 28. So I guess you're kind of consensus score. 28. 28. Um, I didn't see, I didn't see any Greenfield projects on this one. Unless I missed something. I did not either. I know it's preferred. It's not mandatory. I just had that as a note. I was going to ask the committee if they saw the same thing. That's, that's what I found too. Well, I'll tell you, but maybe more so than that where it's struggled was. And this is, I know you touched on this. We said preferred projects completed in the last 10 years and three or four of them. Maybe we're not. It is at least three or four. It's one. Yeah. Number four had the most committee members combined on that project from 2015 completion. Yeah. Because of the Florida projects in my notes, this wasn't splitting because of their Florida projects. But I know it'd be just because they had them on the, on the list of projects. They were not as recent as their out of state projects. They were all older than 10 years. Um, I did know that it's kind of back to the first scoring element, the project executive construction manager were involved in three of the projects together. Those were three in Florida. Um, and let's see the second project. There's one in Tallahassee where it did have had the most representation from the key team members. So I had them in the second highest category, but at the top with a 26. I actually had a 26 on that one. So it was alright. Highest of the second tier is where I put them. Well, so should we avoid debatement? Just we're all 26 civil. So it's gonna be easy for consensus. 26 of the consensus. So we are on sunt. Um, so I'm gonna probably have, you know, similar struggles maybe talking about through the first element. Fantastic resume of projects. Um, there were a total of seven large CMAR projects that they listed all, all out of state. One of the projects was our, uh, our potable booster station, which I know Wester on their team had listed in that, uh, great project. Um, so maybe want to rehash the fact that I struggled a bit with tying the team members on art on this specific proposal to some of those projects. Um, however, I know that the CMAR project manager and the, and the principal were heavily involved in the project at Nashville. That is ongoing. Um, that's going on for like 2035 or something. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yeah. So I estimated completion date 2035, uh, huge project, uh, treatment passing over 900 EMGD, $800 million value CMAR. Um, they listed out other, I just highlighted those two. They listed out key team members involved in the, I guess what I call the large, maybe the longer list of folks who were involved in that project, who were also being involved in this project. Um, I had them in the highest category. I initially, well, I had them in the highest, the score of 28. That's right. 28. I had listed them as a 30. It was halfway, but that's here. Um, so I think the question for us is, do we, I'm going back and look. So we had Archer Western at 28, Keywood at 28. I was just more impressed with the amount of CMARs and the size of them. That's what pushed me to the 30. Well, on that third project, almost everybody on the team was on that project. Yes. And they had worked with Jacob on that one also as well. So you want to go up to a 29? I mean, do you guys feel that they were at the same level? Um, so I'm asking your opinion as the other partners, the middles. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I had all three of them. I had those three scored the same. They will probably agree. Let me scroll back to their proposal. Uh, that's a Nashville project. If you look at the table at the back, it shows the project. Yeah. Um, I guess the question is, y'all feel that they rank the same as the other firms? That's kind of regret. Yes. I think the question being proposed, it was should we. Well, and they did have a green field too. I mean, I would, I think I would struggle more putting them ahead of the other ones in this category. I, yes, but I, you know, it's why we're here. Right. To talk through that. So, um, how David, did you and I, we both have 28 and you had 30. So I think really the question is scoring the other two at 28. We feel they should be the same or a point higher than the first two. Um, the reason I say for me, it's, it's harder is because I, when, when you look at their resumes, I mean, they also, they all have very large, uh, projects they've completed, um, all either predominantly either CMR or some other collaborative delivery. Um, and they had their, their team members represented on the projects. So I'm, you know, I'm open to, you know, open to discussion, but that's why, you know, for me, it was hard to give them a higher score relative to the other two. Thank you. Um, I'd be good to 28. Here we go. Perspectives. Yeah, sure. Yeah. I'm good. All right. So we're going to go consensus. 28. We are moving to criteria three CMR firms approach project delivery. Um, and so let's introduce this. I probably had the most got lost in the weeds more with this section than any other section. Um, there is a lot of, you know, these, again, these are four firms who know what they're doing. Yeah. More, you know, more so than most of us would know what they're doing. Um, and so there is a lot of, of really good information. I felt that was, was, uh, you know, brought up in each of these. And they each had interesting takes. I was, you know, going through, reading these, be like, oh, that's a good thought. You know, jot those things down. Um, so. If we read the two tier, the top two tiers. So it's just some middle shows good understanding. And the only difference in the top tier is superior understanding. Yeah. So I have, and I do have some things that I thought were differentiating, but I, you know, going through this, I, this is where I suspect maybe a lot more to, more to talk about with, with this element than some of the others. So just in the scoring criteria, cause I wanted to make sure I was, I was very cognizant of what that was stressing was, um, we get to describe the approach to cost estimating GMP development process. Firms may include, and some, you know, did the GMP cost books from previous projects. Um, describe approach to construction services, including construction work breakdown, sequencing, anticipated phasing, early work packages, construction activities, and then describe tools and procedures they'll use to identify and track risk, manage change, track and trend project costs. Um, so I won't, I won't go through all the criteria and listed out, but those are some of the things that as I was really trying to differentiate, I, uh, try to go back to just, you know, so we're justifying scores gives us something to talk through and make sure we're on the same page. Um, so for Archer Western, I thought what they laid out was a very, was a very good. Um, I guess what I would call very good general process that I would expect would work very well for this project, but compared comparatively to some of the others, I didn't see as much specifics about this project. Um, that doesn't mean that their approach, you know, isn't very valid as for some of the other ones. Again, trying to split errors. There were cases where they were saying, this is what we will do on a specific project. We're making this recommendation now. Um, anyway, so I'm not doing all the talk. I had them in at the top of the second highest category in 15. Back and forth myself. Um, didn't know that they had worked with Jacob before. Um, and I've struggled with this category for all firms. So kind of getting in the weeds, like you said, trying to nitpick back and forth, like making notes. And that's where I went to like, is it good or superiors? It's it's a big jump. Um, agreeable. Like you said, John, that would be okay with the 15 in this category field. Yeah, it's very similar. Um, I didn't see a lot of the, uh, the detail about how specific items or, you know, when they were going to be done, things like that. Um, so I actually was at 16, but I think 15 is probably more appropriate. Yeah. And I, you know, again, this is, uh, we are trying to split hairs a bit. They had a schedule they talked about. And it wasn't that they weren't, um, in fact, a couple of key points I had here. They're confident in their ability to deliver early operational functionality by August, 20, 28, two months ahead of the county's capacity jet objective. They also said they had a 728 item, you know, proposal level schedule that identified critical path items in the discussion. I just didn't see as much of what those were. Um, so you said you were at 16, you'd be okay with 15. Yeah. I think 15 is fine. Great. So when we were at 15, 15 is a consensus. Excellent. So I appreciate that they went through, they said they, um, and discussed how they evaluate the preliminary design report, the bypass concepts. They recommended an option, um, secret been option three, because it combined the external bypass early operating path with the internal bypass permanent pump station. Uh, they indicated published switch gear and transformer lead times do not support the county schedule without a different sourcing approach. They highlighted their, uh, Hewitt supply network. Sounds like it'd be like a home shopping network channel or something. Um, but pursue, uh, let's see here. Evaluating earlier production slots and qualified alternate assemblies using approved components. Well, I, I don't want to sit here and maybe restate what they put in there, but they, they, they highlighted specific things to our projects and how, what's going to have to happen to get us there. They recommended three GMPs, um, one for long lead equipment. Um, a second one for mobilization site civil foundations and tanks, and a third for all remaining, uh, options. They also said they had a class four estimate, uh, establishing an early post baseline. Um, I had them in the highest category at a 17. I had them in the 16. That's kind of weird. Yeah. I like the, um, the mentioning of bypass and get that done. Cause that's, you know, I know we probably have to have chemical treatment too, but if we get a bypass and at least we can start moving some water. So yeah, I have my 17. I'd be fine with that. Okay. So we'll, we are at 17. 17 is your consensus? For keyword. MWH constructors. Yeah. All right. So they also highlighted, they, they recommended two GMPs. One early works, long lead procurement items to essentially the balance of the plant. Um, they also thought that a good job of talking about specifics. Um, see here, they talked about the same, you know, completing the yard piping and bypass within the early works. Um, but this was interesting. They recommended separating the high service pump station from the operations facility. Uh, decoupling structure prevents below grade piping for turbine pumps. Uh, and we got the type of here. Turbine pump cans, delaying operations ceiling whilst both structures to advance concurrently saving five months on schedule. Um, they also highlighted that current generators may represent the project's longest lead equipment. Uh, MWH evaluate temporary backups for commissioning startup. This would protect substantial completion while reserve, uh, reserving permanent generator installation. Another typo. And they highlighted, install a temporary bypass to achieve the October 2028 operation capability. Uh, I, long story short, after my rain link, I also had them in the highest category at 17. That's where I had them. I liked their approach. I liked both the bypassing and separating the, uh, pump station from the pump house or the operations control room from the pump house. Um, I hadn't been at 18, but I would be more than one to go to 17 since that seems to be consensus. Okay. It was 17. It was 17. 17. It was 17. Moving to Sunt. Um, surprise since part of this was in the first section that this didn't come up earlier. Um, anyone who's been involved in this project and I'm sure you too can speak to know that by far the most contentious thing that has come up was the pump selection of the turbine versus horizontal split case. Um, they, um, they highlighted actually having someone who was specific to that. I know that was an earlier session, but I thought that was rather astute and showing that this really was something they have looked at specifically for our project. Um, because I, I don't know what the second most contentious thing has been, but it's a distant second that in this project, maybe tank versus pipe mixing. I don't know what other things have even come close to that. Um, so let me have that. Let me go back to my other notes in here. Um, they also highlighted, you know, this from a previous section. Um, they have developed detailed phase one scope and fee. Um, they have reviewed our contractor review to contract with our legal team and are confident we will reach a contract agreement quickly with the county. Um, I had in here. Now I'm trying to find or I think they were saying they would be ready to go. If we could hit it on the October board, it's a pretty aggressive, uh, aggressive for us. Yeah. To, to try to, try to hit that date. Um, I'm trying to find, I know they, they, let's see here, class four estimate, level two schedule. Um, I don't know why I'm skipping over. They, something where they were highlighting engaging, uh, potentially subcontractors with, you know, kind of nailing down some of the contractual stuff ahead of time. I'm slipping my mind on the line, find it in my notes in front of me. But, um, I had them at a score of 18. I'll let you guys comment while I try to find the rest of my notes on it. I thought this was the most well done submittal, this category, uh, criteria, however you want to call it. I had them at 18. I had them at 18 also. They seem very aggressive, uh, having tickets scheduled going faster. Creative ideas. It's interesting. They also found some of the other parts, uh, a single phase GMP. So, in purpose, a year support, early procurement, long lead equipment through owner control allowance, um, within the pre-construction scope of services. So we all said 18, I guess only labor that 20, but I think we're good with consensus score 18. 18. Realizing them talking and not taking notes. We'll ask you about the, uh, we'll get to the end and I'll ask you about the memo. I told myself I was going to take notes as we were doing this and be ready for the memo. And I'm not taking notes as we're talking through this. Um, okay. Yep. Uh, final criteria and CMR firms, recent current projected workload, um, back at Archer Western. So I had just a couple of points with the scoring criteria, um, provide a written overview of the firm's current workload, ability to deliver scope services, uh, provide the firm's current project. Some projected project workload for the next two, three years, basically. Um, describe the firm's planning, deliver, indicate availability of key partners, subcontractors and some consultants. So, um, something we should point out. I know that Archer Western had it in here. It's interesting. They are part of the, um, I forget which GMP it was, but they are on site doing the, what will be the point of connection for this facility. That's part of the, uh, segment B for pipeline, segment B for the Tampa Bay water, South Hillsborough pipeline. Um, so they will have a presence on site. Um, uh, I, this is one of those areas where I would stress to firms that my opinion, the criteria was pretty clear to be in the highest category. You have to show backup staffing capability. Um, they did not. So no, I did not see that either. So I had that as a, I have them in the second category as a three only because I don't, it wasn't so much. There was any issue with what they're, how they're laying out their workload. Um, but following the criteria, I had the money through highest category. You need to have something to show. So I haven't visited through you also, but that's exactly. The symbol, uh, we were a three census. Okay. Cue it. Um, see, they listed out their, their projects in Florida next two, three years at iron bridge, uh, St. Pete, CMR, uh, prospect bloody clean water centers. Completing and maybe has completed by the time said in August. So maybe it was finishing up when they were doing the submittals. Um, three Palm Beach County progressive design bill projects begin this month, um, with separately dedicated teams that will not draw from the proposed personnel for this project. Uh, they had backups identified on staff involvement table in this section and the org chart in the beginning. Um, I had them in the highest score of five. Sure did I. I thought they hit every objective we asked for. Small criteria. Five. Five. Five. We were five. Five consensus. MWH constructors. Uh, their, their projects included 2MGD drinking water expansion and 2MGD Greenfield wastewater plant, both moving into construction. Um, as South County pre-construction begins, this allows immediate deployment of experienced personnel without disrupting current commitments. Um, uh, I'm using the same logic I had for Archer Western. I had them in a three, but they, they didn't address the backups for, uh, any of the primary personnel. Agreed. I had them as a three also. Same reason. Civil. We are at a three. It says it's a three. And then SUNT. Um, SUNT has two projects, only one of them active in Florida. Um, so I have, they didn't jot this down, but I believe it was the JEA project that was on hold. Correct. Um, and they have the Manatee County, North Regional. 31. 31. Yeah. Um, I appreciate the, they indicated their, their resources are not overextended with only having the one current or one active and one on hold. Um, so they have, uh, ample capacity to take on additional workload. Um, they mentioned their team already developed a draft of pre-construction scope of services and fees. Identified preliminary long lead equipment. Um, incorporated Jacobs Culinary Design Report into their planning efforts. They did have backup staff listed on the ore chart in the first section. They had backup check, the staff on the table as well. Um, so I had them in the highest category of five. I had them in five. I had them in five too. All right. Sybil, we are consensus score of five percent. Cool. Alrighty. So I will, uh, go through and recap the scores and so we can finalize the score. So for Archer Western, criteria number one, the ability of the CMAR firm and its professional personnel, you have a consensus of 32. For criteria two, the CMAR firm's experience with projects of similar size and type, you had a consensus of 28. Criteria three, the CMAR firm's approach to project delivery, you had a consensus of 15. And criteria four, the CMAR firm's recent current and projected workload, you had a consensus of three for a total of 78 points. Is everyone in agreement with those scores? Yes. Yes. Okay. So for Kiewit Water Facilities Florida, uh, criteria number one, we had a consensus of 31. Criteria two, consensus of 28. Criteria three, consensus of 17. Criteria four, consensus of five, for a total of 81 points. Is everyone in agreement with those scores? Yes. Yes. Okay. MWH, Constructors Inc. Criteria one, you had a consensus of 28. Criteria two, consensus of 26. Criteria three, consensus of 17. Criteria four, consensus of three, for a total of 74 points. Is everyone in agreement with those scores? Yes, sir. Okay. For Sunt Construction Inc., criteria number one, you had a consensus of 32. Criteria two, consensus of 28. Criteria three, consensus of 18. Criteria four, consensus of five, for a total of 83 points. Everyone in agreement with those scores? Yes. Yes. Okay. So, um, based on the scores, the rank is as follows, with Sunt Construction rank number one, Kiewit Water Facilities rank number two, um, Archer Western rank number three, and MWH Constructors rank number four. Um, it's quarters with the solicitation document. The county may require oral interviews by the shortlisted firms. And, um, of course, it is up to the committee to make that recommendation. Um, shortlisting a minimum of three of those firms. Is it the recommendation and consensus of the committee to move forward with oral presentations and reviews? Or? Uh, I, I would like to. I think these firms are so, so well qualified. I think it's appropriate to, to, um, to do so and to listen to, you know, maybe some things that we, we missed. Um, so yes. I don't know how you guys feel about that. I agree. Okay. Okay. And, um, as far as the, uh, number of firms, again, a minimum of three, is that the consensus to move forward with the three firms for oral interviews? I, I think it would be appropriate to do four. It's not a point swing between. Right. I mean, from first to fourth. So I, yeah, I would think it's appropriate to do all four. To do all four? Yes. All right. So based on that, the consensus again of the committee is to, um, hold oral presentation interviews with the, all four of the firms ranked here today. Um, we will, uh, prepare, um, shortlist based on that. And, uh, we will check the schedules of the committee to, um, determine the date and time for those oral presentations. We will, um, of course, um, advise the firms when that date is their time to be scheduled and give all the information that is necessary to, um, prepare for the oral interviews. So, um, but that said, John, as the chair, you will be, um, required to provide me with a summary of this meeting. Um, I can provide you with the recording to assist with your notes if you need be. Um, as soon as you provide that summary to me, then I'll be able to, you'll be able to, um, post that notice and move forward with scheduling the oral interviews. Okay. So you need the memo done before those can be scheduled. Okay. Okay. So, um, with that, if there's nothing else, I believe that is going to conclude our evaluation. Did you have? I was curious. Can we, can we talk about the memo? Can we talk about the memo now? And is it appropriate to, should we disband this since we're not talking about scoring? Yeah, it's not, yeah, it's not relevant to anything else relevant to this, um, meeting that we will discuss, um, the nature of the, the summary offline. Yeah. Yeah. Anything else in regards to any other comments or questions? Okay. Alrighty. So again, that's going to conclude the oral, I mean, the evaluation committee meeting for CMR 26-0264, the Construction Manager at Risk Services for the South County Drinking Project. We want to thank you all for your, um, participation and to the firms, um, watching. We will be, um, posting the notice and, and being in touch with the firms, um, to schedule those oral presentations. Again, thanks again. And that will conclude the oral, I mean, the evaluation committee meeting for today. Thank you. Thank you.