Okay, good afternoon committee members and other parties of interest. The evaluation committee meeting for CMR 2600264 of the Construction Manager of Risk Services for the South County Drinking Water Facility will be held by means of communications media technology. Active participation will be for committee members. All 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 a procurement buyer for this project and at this time I will ask each committee member to introduce themselves for the record, beginning with the committee chair. Morning, my name is John McCary. I am the Planning Section Manager for the Water Resources Department and the committee chair. My name is David Lumberg. I am Assistant Section Manager for Plant Operations. My name is TJ Black, Section Manager for Plant Mechanical Maintenance and Facilities Maintenance. Okay, thank you. Committee, so for the record this meeting is being recorded. The shortlisted firms have completed their presentations and interviews and we will now proceed with the final scoring phase of this process. Committee will now proceed with any scoring reconsiderations and finalizations of the scores based on the written proposals and the oral presentations and interviews collectively. And now those presentations will be evaluated laboratory can also just reevaluate the scores from the initial meeting at this time, so. AKA number one, course, the ability of CM Used波 and україн rá加入 team direct services personal personnel criteria to the smart firms experience in projects with projects of similar size and type criteria three, the CMARS firm approach to project delivery and criteria for the CMARS firm's recent current and projected workload. So again, to recap the scores from the initial meeting for Archer Western Construction LLC, criteria one, we had a consensus of 32 criteria two, we had a consensus of 28 criteria three consensus of 15 criteria four consensus of three for a total of 78 points for Kiewit Water Facilities Florida company for criteria one we had consensus of 31 criteria two we had a consensus of 28 criteria three we had consensus of 17 criteria four we had a consensus of five for a total of 81 points for MWH Constructors Inc criteria one we had consensus of 28 criteria two we had consensus of 26 criteria three we had consensus of 17 criteria four we had a consensus of three for a total of 74 points for Sun Construction Inc criteria one we had a consensus of 32 criteria two we had consensus of 28 criteria three three we had a consensus of 18 criteria four we had a consensus of five for a total of 83 points so at this time I am going to go ahead and turn the meeting over to the committee chair to begin leave the discussions and evaluation and any again any scoring reconsiderations based on the presentations as well collectively with the pretty proposals thank you um hey man I'll start with making sure we like um went through the first time you want to do category first then confirm we're good with that yeah okay um I I will start by saying I'll reiterate you know what Sybil said we are charged with um seeing if there was any information the interview process that would have us you know alter our scores from the written proposals you know if you're anything to augment that was uh not not considering new information per se that wasn't presented but to um maybe support what was presented and clarify some things for us so um I will I will leave this before any of the firms I I thought what they presented in their their oral um the oral reviews plus our plus the discussion was they through this category they they were who we saw they were which is really fantastic uh fantastic teams um we have uh you know I know I said this everybody I'm tired of seeing you with four great teams and I always take this very seriously and know that we're you know ultimately going to disappoint three and uh you know that take that role seriously also when I was selecting the best firm because this project is very important um so after my long preamble there um I would stick with the consensus score for Archer Western of 32 because they had a fantastic team presented this category yeah I would say the same thing so your score will remain 32 that's correct um Keywood uh same you know we uh fantastic presentation or discussion or discussion of your interview process uh good Q&A discussion I would say we we what we discussed through with with the proposals before a very strong score maybe a group of 31 and I would say I would stick with the consensus score of 31. Great agreed and since the score will remain at 31. um MWH constructors uh appreciated you know they elaborated real on some of the questions that that we had uh through the review of the written proposals um and from from some of that clarification I don't think in in terms of actually revising the score from it necessarily would warranted revising the score from what we we went through with uh evaluating the written proposals so I would also say we the consensus score or recognize the consensus score 28. I agree okay so the consensus score would remain at 28. and finally for Sun um you know again I would say we we we saw they they were who they presented to be you know fantastic um uh supplemental you know discussion Q&A process and I would also say stick with the score that we provided through the written the proposal process of 32. agree agree okay so the consensus score will remain as 32. I will um move on to criteria two sorry I'm pulling up my notes um like the so for the same reasons went through criteria one I mean we scored them high because they did a fantastic job and in this case this was you know the uh like all the project resume portion demonstrating that they can do projects of this scale um I don't I don't see from perspective of new information to support the written proposals that we would change the score but from 28. great great so the consensus score will remain 28 for arch and western so on to cue it it's exact same explanation we haven't scored it at 28. there's no um I saw no reason to change from 28. I agree so the consensus score will remain at 28 for keyword MWH constructors uh similar explanation I think we from what we discussed through today it was you know it was what it was in the written proposal we came to that's a score of 26 and I didn't see any reason to change the group the consensus score or 26 for MWH since same you know I'll keep giving I guess the same explanation uh we gave them a score of 28. I think in consistently in that category with um those other firms I'd say we'd leave it at 28. I agree agree consensus score were made at 28 construction moving to uh see criteria three this was not just in the written proposals but just hearing the discussion today was was where um the the the charge of really trying to separate this was truly trying to hone in on some of the stuff not just to hear what they had to say but also to see if what they were saying support us changing scores from uh to support what they had essentially already submitted to us in the written proposals um for archer western um we had them at a consensus score of 15. I really appreciated some of the discussion that we had today um some of those details haven't heard that I wish were probably in the in the written proposal so since some of that was in my opinion new information or at least um something that wasn't we could tie back to and see where is clearly written I don't think that we should I would not recommend changing the score from 15. I agree okay so the committee agrees to the consensus score to remain at 15 for archer western hewitt uh we had an initial score of 17. I thought they what they elaborated on today was was fantastic detail for what they had in their written proposal for um just their their approach to the specific to this project or how they would lay out the gmp's how they would use the key with supply network working those long lead items we gave them a strong score of 17 and I would say we leave the strong score 17. I agree the consensus of the committee is for the score to remain at 17 for keywood mwh constructors we um they also they you know they had that they presented their gmp's different differently comparatively to to um other firms but we they elaborated on some of that approach today we asked questions they talked more about the the value and decoupling the operations building from the pumping building um they also with questions a bit more about self-performance uh that that we asked i had a um we also scored them a strong score of 17 and i would say it should remain i agree and the committee um again agrees to leave the consensus score at 17 for mwa son during the written proposal process we differentiated them slightly we gave them a higher score of 18. um they they really leaned in to in the written proposal and reiterated today about how to quickly deliver our project with project specific information um i we scored them at 18 and i would recommend we leave it at 18. i agree i agree the consensus of the committee is to leave the score at 18. all right so we're on the final criteria number four going to um departure western um appreciate during you know discussion today this spans other criteria too but they they indicated all their craft personnel were local at a very deep inch um talked about their availability or proposals had availability for the projects one of the things and i know this is a um try to make sure we're diligent about sticking to the scoring criteria um everything they presented both in the proposal and kind of reiterated today in our discussion was strong uh but absent the fact that the proposal didn't include backup personnel um i don't think we can increase it above the three because that next category requires that great i agree the consensus score for will remain at three for archer western um kewitt uh we have an highest possible score of five i don't know that i need to do a lot of talking about it i don't think we should change from that i agree the consensus score will remain at five for kewitt mwh constructors um i you know not not to harp on this too much but i think it's it's important i i i know i said i take this process seriously and i i hope the firms appreciate our our feedback um i know today during the presentation they indicated that backup personnel uh but that is new information that wasn't included in the proposal so that's you know one of those things that um i don't think we'll go in that next can't increase the score to go in the next category because it's not in the proposal and i i also understand that um firms can put names on paper that are back at personnel doesn't necessarily mean they're true truly backup but as part of the as part of the process one i would say that's required for the highest scoring based on scoring criteria and also i would trust the firms would do that diligently to say these are truly backup people and i'm just saying this to acknowledge that i understand people can put a name on a piece of paper and it maybe checks the box but our reviewers i think our our expectation when they put those names on paper and they really mean that those are people who could support you um and be backup personnel so having said that i would recommend we leave their score of three i agree the committee agrees to leave the consensus score at three for mwh okay last one um son we already have in the highest category five um i would say we leave them there i also appreciate that we we questioned you know just to make sure based on their availability work they can do in florida um they really said there's one project that's on on hold not coming back in the near future and even for some strange reason it did they would they would reassess other um other some personnel they've moved them off of that job and the folks that would be committed to this job are committed to this job they have one other active project in florida so they they have the resources to move forward all that said we you know save the score of five three i agree okay the score the consensus score um remain at five or sunk but with that said um again i'll just go ahead and recap uh the scores based on there were no scoring changes however i'll just recap to finalize the scores for archer western criteria number one we the committee have consensus of 32 criteria two the committee had a consensus of 28 criteria three we had a consensus of 15 criteria four consensus of three for a total of 78 points for kiewit criteria one we had a consensus of 31 criteria two consensus of 28 criteria three consensus of 18... three consensus of 18 summary 19 for mw-h constructors of mr mw-h constructors for criteria one we had a consensus of 28 criteria 2 consensus of 26 criteria three consensus of 17 criteria 4 consensus of 3 for a total of 74 points or sun construction criteria one we 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. With that said, the ranking will remain as is with Sun Construction ranked number one, Kiewit Water Facilities ranked number two, Archer-Western ranked number three, and MWH Constructors ranked number four. Are these the consensus of the committee and recommending that we move forward with the recommendation as the for the highest ranked firm? Yes. Yes. Okay. Alrighty. So with that said, I will just remind everyone that the cone of silence is still in place. We will be, once we receive direct the final recommendation from the department in writing, we will post that notice of intent to recommend award. There will be a five-day protest period. If at the conclusion of the protest period, if no protest has been received, then we will, the cone of silence will end and we will move forward with a recommendation, an agenda item recommendation to the board for the approval of the selection and the authorization to begin negotiations with the highest ranked firm. So with that said, that is going to conclude the oral presentations and interviews and the final evaluation scoring meeting for CMR 2600264, the Construction Manager at Risk Services for the South County Drinking Water Facility. We want to thank all the firms for your participation and your hard work and effort you put forth with this project. Thank you again and that will conclude the meeting for today.