Hey, good morning, committee members and other partners of interest. The evaluation committee meeting for RFP 2600156, the membrane based landfill leachate treatment services project is will be held by means of communications, media technology. Active participation will be for committee members and advisors only. Provisions have been made for members of the public desire to have access to the meeting. Public attendees must remain on mute and keep cameras off. For the record, this meeting is being recorded and will be made available after the meeting has ended. Please be advised that the call of silence is still in effect and the will remain in effect until five days after the county post its notice of intent to award or unless the procurement is canceled by the county. All questions, comments and concerns must be directed to my attention and my attention only preferably through the unit vendor discussions message platform. My name is Sybil Tucker. I am the chief buyer for this project. At this time, I will ask each committee member to introduce themselves for the record. And we're going to begin with committee chair to start us off with introductions. Hi. Good morning, everyone. My name is Eli Alvarado. I'm the division director of sustainability and disposal operations with the solid waste department of Hillsborough County. Good morning. My name is Danny Gallagher. I'm a project manager for the salt waste management department. I'm an advisor on the committee. Quinceghi, section manager for land flow operations with Hillsborough County Solid Waste. Adam Wood, project manager with Hillsborough County Environmental Services. Okay. The committee will now evaluate, discuss, and score by consensus the proposals received for the solicitation. Each proposal will be evaluated based on the information provided in the proposal as it correlates to the requirements and evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation. The proposal will be scored based on the following criteria. Criteria 1, the qualifications, experience, and references for a maximum of 35 points. Criteria 2, the project approach and schedule for a maximum of 20 points. Criteria 3, the leachate treatment fee total project costs for a maximum of 45 points. The evaluation committee chairperson will lead off the discussions. After each category discussed, the committee will state their final consensus score agreed upon and I will record that score in my spreadsheet. At the conclusion of the scoring, I will verify the scores with the committee and provide the price points as well as the final total points for each firm. And the ranking will be established at that point. So at this point, I will go ahead and turn the meeting over to our committee chair to begin the discussions and the story. Eli. Thank you. So we have three proposals that have submitted their proposals to us. We have Dynotech, we have Stream Goldwater, and we have sustainable landfill solutions. We're going to be going over each one of them. Let's start with Dynotech. It's the two areas that we need to grade them in. These are very good proposals, all three of them. I want to start with that. I'm very happy that there's interest in helping us with the membrane system that we were requesting proposals for here at the landfill. So I'm very happy with that. So let's start with Dynotech. The three areas, like Sybil mentioned, our qualifications, experience, and reference at the first. That one, Dynotech. I saw that they had some Florida experience. I also saw that they have good qualifications. They needed to provide the years and summer of experience operating projects like this one. They mentioned a few in Florida, projects with landfill, a set combination of municipal solid waste. Also, they were supposed to describe any directly, relevant experience, years of summary, summary of experience, et cetera. So with that in mind, they checked most of those boxes successfully. There was some room for improvement in some of them, but why yes. Should we set the score now? Okay. The score that I have for that is 20 of 35 points per count under qualifications, experience, and references. We did check references. Danny, can you please provide us what the references look like for kind of it? Yes. All three references, reference projects responded that were in Dynotech's proposal. The responses were satisfactory. They enjoyed working with Dynotech. But I guess a key difference was a lot of these were operators of their systems, not necessarily the clients, like, which I feel is more our situation. So that was one, I thought, point to bring up. But they did have a pretty good wide range of operations for different types of disposal for brine and permeate, large systems, small systems, but not like a direct comparison to our, like, type of landfill waste energy, ash, that type of thing. Thank you, Danny. They have experience. It's a smaller scale of systems. They also saw that they proposed to hire subcontractors locally. There was no specifics about that, though. There was an organization chart that was offered, but no specific rules described there. And in terms of ability to obtain industrial wastewater permits to discharge through the beach, which is part of the same category here. They indicated that they have assisted in obtaining the permits, but no direct experience was described there. Same thing with the next slide, which was demonstrate permitting experience with Dallahassee or the Southwest district offices for DB. And that's all I have. We want to go around now. And I have a couple of other notes here, but we can get back to that if we need to. I think that's the goal with it. Okay. I shared similar experience in reviewing all three proposals. You know, Dynatech, very similar. Direct permanent experience was something that could have been approved upon. I scored them 18 18 for the qualifications and the project approach. I scored them a 10 for the agreement. We just want to do the one at one at a time. Yeah, we're just in the first. Yeah, that's the first. I see. I gotcha. So I scored them an 18. But exactly what you're advising, Eli, I saw that the qualifications came down to really to the permitting, permitting side, the direct permitting side of it. Funny you should say that. That's exactly my opinion too. Everything that you stated is pretty much everything that I observed too. Yeah, the concern that I had with them was the permitting side. I think that would provide a challenge for us. What score do you? Same thing, 20. So do we concern 20 or 19? 20. 25. 20 is your consensus or criteria you want? Yes, 20 points or 30 points. The second category that we have is project approach and schedule. In that one, we're looking at, let's say, provide detail of discussion on the permitting design, etc. Specific challenges to the project based on the contractor's review of information that we've provided, how the contractor will address potential environmental impacts, including stormwater, safety and security measures, etc. There will be also, there was also a line here for membranes and parts, originates from, say, working relationship and communicate with the county, and some other technical specifications like throughput of technology process flow. This one, I have some notes as well. I'm going to give my score first, which is 10 out of 20 points. Went into detail about, but not, let me see, they went into detail, but there was some things that were not tied back to how it relates to our facility, the Southeast County landfill. So there was also a mention of missing parameters, the experience, or maybe there should have been some sampling of the leachate. So to expand that, right, to understand what we have out there. They also made offers to frequency versus asking, on-site personnel, early detection of icons and relaying them to the county. They gave a recovery rate and size, feeding indicated they required portable water. They also indicated it wasn't clear that they wanted the county to pay for backup power. So that has to do with the 2.4 or 2.3.1, and then less than 0.1 acres. They were talking about equalization that was needed, but they didn't describe it in detail. What is it that they were proposing in terms of equalization of the flow in case of the flow in case of our renovate? That's all I have. So a score of 10 in this, mainly over pretty much two key areas. This kind of felt like we were owner involvement, like us as an owner had to operate this system. So this kind of feels like they installed it, and then there's no level of support continuing on. You know, we've talked about experienced operators, routine maintenance, ongoing oversight to achieve expected performance. You know, that just comes back to owner involvement. Just felt like we were the ones that were going to take over right from the get-go. You know, the reviews were generally favorable, but it just comes back to that turnkey. There was one review, Danny, I think there was one of the customers mentioned about it, could be more turnkey. So for that, and then some permitting support. So for that, I gave a 10 on that. I gave them a 12, but the same thing that I felt like it wasn't turnkey. I also had questions about their ability to react to an emergency situation, i.e. a hurricane. How long would it take for them to recover? And again, we would need extra help because we could potentially have problems at the landfill where we would need this fully functional. So I had questions about that, and the utility connections seemed a bit ambiguous. So I did 12, but I'm also more than willing, I think, 10 to see the appropriate score. It looks like we're at them. Yeah, 10 is your consensus? Yes. For our two, we're going to move to the next one, which is Stringle. Is that okay? Mm-hmm. Stringle water. All right, same areas are over here. I'm not going to go into the detail of all the areas. Sorry, I already read them a moment ago, but I'm going to read my comments, my review. The projects with landfill, a set combination of municipal solid waste, but they were not directly addressed. The water treatment plant is a directly relevant experience. The area of it wasn't there. I didn't see local projects, even though they're local here. Summary experience of relevant key personnel. It lacked a little bit of depth. Employees, reference projects, that will be involved. It was, I think, page 26. Let me see. So summary, demonstrating the ability to obtain industrial wastewater permits. Didn't see anything about that. And who have been applying for any of the firm's services in the last five years? I didn't see anything in there either. If you guys saw something, feel free to jump in. What's your turn? Case studies, post-references. Post-references, also chopper right up to three references. Let's see. We can hear about the references. Danny, what do they say? This one was a little difficult to obtain. I think this one had issues with the contacts and I was able to get responses. I think they actually reached out to them. The shrimp go to obtain them because they weren't written correctly. Oh, no, they weren't in there at all. The contacts weren't provided in the proposal. So once I was able to reach out to them, one-sided communication could improve. The people, the clients appreciate the technology, and they're getting the results they wanted. But two of them were also products that were in construction. So you can't even really review them, really. So the operation relationship, the communication, the treatment they're looking for. But generally, would you recommend them? Everyone said yes. But they gave their caution. If you have any specific questions, I'll answer them all. But I think that's... I'll let them ask the question if they have any questions. So identify the amount of land needed. They didn't list it. Describe the business relationship between the contractor and client. I didn't see that there. Describe any change orders. The farmers for the permit and brine disposal were identified. But the permit and brine how are these clothes not specified on the project has been operational only on delivery time. That's what was provided. Standard pointed out there was no contact information provided. And what did you know? And any projects in operation during major storms, they didn't describe that. So my overall score for that section, per section of qualifications, experience and references is 15 out of 35. All right. So much to some of the observations that you had during this review. You know, it really came down to them refining their designs and communications in regards to their reviews. Also, they kind of... Their current projects, in reading through this, it looks like they kind of just started. They're not in the full implementation yet with some of these projects. So while it... While the proposal was well organized and professionally presented, it just kind of lacked in some of those areas from an experience perspective. So it's... But it's agreed, echo exactly what you guys were advising was highlighting, Eli. For that, I'll give a score of... I had a score of 18, but I could come up to the 20. Not a big deal. Yeah, 15. Sorry. So I found that overall for this section, that it was very light on the detail. It was hard to find a lot of the answers to the questions that we had asked. The one thing they did have that I don't think anyone else described was PFAS removal. But on the other hand, right now, that is not an issue that may become down the line that may be useful. But at this exact moment, that's that's not really a primary concern. I was primarily concerned with the permitting that I think that would provide some challenges for us. And yeah, the references that, you know, again, not in Florida. And, you know, it does seem like they're, you know, not much active long-term projects that have been going on. So I think that poses a little bit of a challenge for us. I'm not lower than you guys, though, as far as total points. I gave them 10. So, but again, I'm okay with 15 too. I'm okay with 15. All right. I just want to point out also, just to reinforce the idea of what you just said, I mean, they'll show wastewater permits and the permitting experience wasn't there. It wasn't there. It was my very, like, not there at all. So, yeah, so let's go with something 15 out of 35. From 15 is your consensus? Yes. Is that correct? The second category is the permitting approach on schedule. Again, here we go. On this one, the diagram with the approach was included. It was not specific on how the contractor will address potential environmental impacts that will be addressed. They said that there's no details on it. Cybersecurity plus area of safety and security measures. There are local Odeza facility, which I mentioned. In terms of how the contractor will maintain a working relationship and communicating with the county, it was not provided any detail on it. It was just mentioned in passing. Same thing with how the contractor proposed to manage issues of non-compliance and corrective actions. There was no detail in it either. Overall, like you said, Quinn, the presentation was very well organized and formatting was good, but this content was missing. They did gave recovery rates for provide throughput of technology and process flow. They provided that. Where it goes to talk about the anticipated utility draws. If you didn't specify anything about that, estimated area required for the project didn't include that either and mentioned redundancies when it comes to operations. How will operations be maintained in the event of an outage? How will the project? Now when we're talking about timeline included the demobilization plan, including timelines and site restoration, it didn't give a timeline but mentioned a cost and, you know, kind of like press it on the county to take care of it. In that area, the project approach and schedule, you know, I, they weren't, they weren't very light, so I gave them 8 out of 20. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them. Sure. Because there's some research on this as well. Yeah, I definitely continue to echo Eli. We're kind of firing on the same cylinders there. You know, they have some innovative treatment technologies, but they're just their limited history within landfill leachate in the industry, as well as especially in the state of Florida. It's just limited. I would like some full operation in the state of Florida. That would have been nice to see that and see how that's operating for them and for the customer. As far as the quality, you know, yeah, like Eli was saying, the scheduling could, could have, was very light, could have gave a little bit clearer direction on the, on the forecasting of the project. For that, I scored them a 10. So, yeah, repeating a lot of the same worry. I found that this one was very light in the detail or just no detail at all. Yeah, I mean, the one bonus that they are in Odessa, so they are close by. So that, that, that could really help us a lot. But, you know, a lot of the details were missing. Couldn't timelines, the commission, everything like that was really missing. The detail that I think would have really helped us a lot in this decision making process. The, yeah. So, like I said, everything you guys noticed, I noticed too. But I, a little, I gave them a 5 out of 20. We made an 8 quick, because I think you went with a 10. Well, yeah. And an 8. And an 8. And an 8, I think is fair. So, 8 is your consensus? Yes. Yes, 8. It's pretty cool. It's more down to SLS, sustainable solutions. So, well, in the first area, qualifications, experience, and references. I saw a long list of, of, of projects. Uh, there are local to Florida Florida in there. Uh, the proposals, different agencies with the propulsors child provide use. In summary, uh, they actually provided that. There was two 75,000 gallons per day and a 30,000 ounce per day reference projects that they mentioned. Um, uh, identify projects with landfill that accept a combination of municipal soil waste, unprocessable waste, and combustor ash. Um, they didn't mention any waste to energy use, uh, but similar lychee composition. Yes. Uh, so, let's see here. Uh, their, their, their experience has been solely doing that kind of work for me. It's about solid waste in that field. Um, so there's no experience, uh, in other areas that are not, like, outside of this. So, it's mainly on this, uh, solely on this. Um, multiple of the projects, uh, they describe are under five years. Uh, I'm sorry, if you have the experience of an operating, maintaining, uh, systems like this one, under five years. There's multiple, uh, but they do have a lot of Florida experience. They also have an academic component and, uh, some other items that they mentioned in their book, book publication and all that. Um, so they have done a lot of, uh, studies on this thing. So, they seem to understand, uh, what we're asking for here in that. Um, summaries on qualifications of cost of contractors included on the project team. It was shared. Yes. Uh, we have a lot of information on that. That was sharing their, um, uh, employees, uh, reference projects that would be involved in this project and the rules and all that good stuff. It was, uh, answered fully. Um, and, uh, let's see here. Uh, demonstration of the ability to obtain industrial wastewater permits, along with the, uh, Tallahassee Southeast, uh, district officers, uh, the experience. They have a strong understanding, based on what I write there, of permitting timelines, relationships, and, uh, experience with, uh, SWIFT MOT, not only at DEP that we mentioned, but also SWIFT MOT, the Southwest Water Water Management District. Um, the lease of, uh, services the contractor currently offers. It included, uh, permitting, operation, construction, everything, like Turkey. They provided clients and I'm going to turn it over to that important references. Yes, the references were very, um, positive. The, all three had just glowing reviews about this, uh, vendor. They said communication was, uh, great in the best way possible. They meet your needs, exactly what you need. They, they need it. Um, they come and go without even like, um, you know, to checking with them. They are on top of their system. Uh, let's see what else. Uh, would you work with them? I asked all of this and they said, yes, we're going to again, um, no issues, great partners, um, very fast, like great timelines. Um, they were going to understand the chemistry, uh, the, uh, the project team, they're great. They're just great people in general. They, they like this stuff. They solve problems. They give solutions. They'll be a great company to work with. And, and, but they're just kind of getting everything, like the, the, the, the, and how quickly they can, they can operate, how quickly they can get their stuff up there. How quickly did they get someone out there? Cause they're local, um, I think they're based in Gainesville. Uh, and they have someone here locally that wouldn't, um, they, I think they said that would jump on our system. So yeah, there's glowing reviews. Very popular. Thank you. Um, they described that the area that they would need is a small area, 0.1 acres, uh, so it's a compact operation. And then check all the boxes, uh, there. So in this one, the first area of evaluation here for SLS, I am giving them a 34 out of 35. Well, I graded them exactly that, 34, 35 points. So, um, exactly what you said. Again, I'm going to continue echoing that Eli, um, Danny, exactly what I saw in the reviews, uh, on this company. Um, but I'll summarize it. The proposal was great. Reference checks were great. Their technical approach to the project was outstanding. Their strong permitting experience. Um, it just, they just, it felt like they were already here when you really read their proposal, even it's like, they're almost here. So, um, they, they definitely scored strong in this, uh, in this area for me. So, um, I actually gave them 35, uh, 35. Um, he's perfect. Yeah, nobody's perfect. But, but I, yeah, I, I found that they, they showed in this that they, they understood when they, when we asked for references, they gave us the references down to the people that would be running our plan. Um, they did show that they had an understanding of the Southeast land and the challenges that it may have. Um, yeah, the references were good. Um, yeah, they gave CVs for their people. That was, was very good to shoot to give us that level of detail. Uh, plenty of experience. Um, yeah, lots of, lots of plants and they've got knowledge in Florida and yeah, and critical from, from my perspective is yeah, they, they really demonstrate that they understand the permitting processes that may be required for both the landfill for this and for the industrial wastewater permit for the, uh, for the state field. So yeah, I, I liked them a lot. So, yeah, I think 35, but we can do 34. So it sounds like we have 34 second census score. 34 consensus. So the next area that we're evaluating them is the project approach and schedule, but for all 20 points, um, the check on my boxes here too. Uh, they, uh, let's see, if there's one second, let's stop something. So in terms of the specific challenges for the project, um, the potential environmental concerns or challenges that we may have, et cetera, because of their knowledge of the permitting process and all that and the operation, they explain everything in detail, like, uh, you know, the, the membrane parts, the membranes, the parts, the, the work that they originate from, how it's still going to be installed, everything was in there very described, oh, I'm sorry, described very indeed in very much detail. Um, see, uh, there was capacity and continuously described in there, uh, very compact, like I said, very compact, uh, footprint, backup generator was mentioned. So all of those boxes, uh, they check all the boxes. Um, I'm, I'm giving them on this one, the approach and schedule, uh, they seem very knowledgeable. I, I'm going to go with 19 out of 20 because no one was perfect. There was a couple of things there that I had, uh, like I said, that, that could have been a little bit stronger, but I think, uh, they're solid 19 out of 20 points on this one. Yeah. So I, uh, I scored them a 20. Uh, they, they were perfect in this, uh, in my opinion. Um, they just really like from start to finish, they had their whole plan laid out. I like that they had a contingency plan already to go. Um, I, yeah, I just, and the, and the permitting is going to go there. So it gave me confidence that their permitting knowledge and their background will definitely, because that's usually in our projects, that's what holds us up is the permitting. So, um, you know, I, I think they're, I, I, I have that trust, um, that, that they're going to do a good job, um, is selected. So that's why I went with the 20. Um, so I went with the 20 also. Um, yeah, they, they really demonstrated in this section that they understood the layout of the plan very well. Like we said, they had even proposed, Hey, if this happens, we have this pond as the backup. This is how we would shunt flows. If there were different issues, uh, having the battery pack up, they had already thought of problems related to hurricanes, which is very common in Florida. And yeah, their, their understanding of potential issues with, you know, really showed that they, they really understood our plan and stuff that may be unique to us, especially as we deal with the brine management of the plants. Um, so yeah, I gave them a 20. I will go with the 20 also. So some of the consensus score is 20. The census of 20? 20, yes. Okay. So that is going to include you guys in the scoring, discussion of scoring for the first two criteria. I'm going to go through and, um, just recap and then give the scores for the price points. So for a firm one, the first firm's on the tech system we have for criteria one, we have a consensus of 20 criteria to consensus of 10. For the price points, they received the full 45 points, um, their price, uh, amount for the leach treatment fee, total, total cost. Cause that's what the price points were based on. The total cost was $5,850,175, bringing them to a total score of 75. For the second firm, Stream Go Water USA LLC, for criteria one, we have a consensus of 15, criteria two, consensus of eight. For the leach treatment fee, total project costs, they received 23.23 points. And their price score was, or price was 11,334,450, giving them a total score of 46.23 points. For the final firm, Sustainable Landfill Solutions LLC, criteria one, you had a consensus of 34. Criteria two, you had a consensus of 20. For criteria three, the leach treatment fee, total price, total project costs, they received 25.24 points. Their price, submitted total price point, uh, points, I'm sorry, total price was $10,428,750, giving them a total score of 79.24 points. With that, uh, Sustainable Landfill will be ranked number one, Dinatech ranked number two, and Stream Go ranks number three. Are the consensus scores arrived at, um, by the committee, or is everyone in agreement with those scores? I am in agreement. Yes. So with that, uh, that is the ranking. Um, um, it is, is it the, um, consensus of the committee to, uh, move forward with, uh, recommendation or selection of the highest ranked firm? Or would it be, uh, the recommendation to, I want to move that we go with the highest ranking firm at this point? Agreed. Agreed. That's the agreement of the committee is to move forward with the, uh, recommendation of the selection of the, uh, highest ranked firm, Sustainable Landfill Solutions LLC. So with that, um, that is going to conclude the consensus. So the discussion is going for today. Um, Eli, as the chair is required to provide us with the summary of this meeting, as well as the recommendation of the committee within that summary, once that summary is received by procurement, then, um, the notice of intent to recommend award will be posted. Um, the, uh, there at the conclusion of the five day protest period of no protest is received, then we will move forward with an, uh, item to the board to, um, approve the selection. And then at that point, then the, uh, department can proceed with negotiating the agreement with that, uh, selected firm. So with that, uh, I do want to make mention one more time before we conclude that the cone of silence is still in effect. Cone of silence is still in effect, and again, will remain in effect until the conclusion of that five day protest period, once that notice of intent is posted. So please be mindful of that. Um, there is still to be no contact, uh, while that cone of silence is in place, no contact with the, any of the firms and as well as the firms on here listening, no contact with any of the committee members, any questions or comments, concerns need to be directed to my attention via the unit procurement system. And, um, again, that will conclude the evaluation committee meeting for today for the RFP 2600156 for the membrane-based landfill leachate treatment services project. We want to thank you all for your time and your attendance in your participation with this, this project. Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That will conclude today.