good morning committee members and other parties of interest this is the reconvened evaluation committee meeting for rfp-26-00349 roll cart management services my name is victor gonzalez and i'm the buyer assigned to this project the meeting is being held in part by means of communication media technology and has been publicly noticed active participation will be for committee members own provisions have been made for any members of the public starting to have access to view the meeting no recording excuse me the recording will also be available after the meeting has ended if you have if you're watching online today make sure that you meet your microphone and turn off the cameras for the duration of the meeting please be advised the cone of sun is still in effect all meeting and correspondence must include me again for the record this meeting is being recorded and has been publicly noticed at this time i will ask committee members to introduce themselves for the record beginning with the committee chairperson good morning brian johnson uh manager of uh disposal and technical services for his program solid waste serving as chair for this particular good morning tony bailey section manager of solid waste department good morning eduardo busquets division director for uh transfer operations division so this management department good morning lashonda singleton section manager scale house services at solid waste department and ethan curtsy with chairman services just here as an observer thank you everyone as a reminder on monday september 21st 2026 the county received a total of five proposals in response to rfp-26-00349 on wednesday october 7th 2026 the evaluation committee discussed evaluated and scored each proposal ultimately arriving at consensus score for each criterion per proposal the purpose of today's meeting is to provide the evaluation committee an opportunity to review previously provided documentation and determine whether any revisions to its prior evaluations are warranted for the record i have the following documentation with me today which was previously provided to the committee and was redistributed in advance of this meeting to allow for additional opportunity to review the county's two cure notices issued to flea genius lee genius's response to the second cure notice the county's determination letter issued to flea genius and the board of county commissioners agenda item concerning the county's request for termination for convenience which was approved by the board in january 12 2022 committee members have received this documentation in advance and have had the opportunity to review please note that the basis for termination that's outlined in the corresponding cure notices was the failure to provide the performance bond required under a previous contract a performance bond is not a requirement for the current solicitation as we proceed the committee has exercised its judgment in determining whether the information warrants any change to its prior evaluation any revisions must remain grounded any solicitations published evaluation criteria and the information the committee determines is appropriate to consider under those criteria we will proceed in the same alphabetical order as the original evaluation committee meeting for each proposer i will ask whether the committee wishes to revisit its prior evaluation and or discuss its previous consensus scores we will begin with baypoint exterior services llc committee members would anyone like to revisit the prior evaluation of baypoint exterior services llc and or discuss its previous consensus score i would not sir no thank you we'll go ahead and proceed to the next proposer would anyone like to revisit the prior evaluation of fleet genius llc and or discuss its previous consensus score yes yes thank you mr johnson i'll go ahead and turn the discussion over to you for the committee's review okay given me um just on instructions we receive from the current director as we all recall we factor in the experience just described and uh now we'll be informed that it's been appropriate to have done so so taking my look back at the evaluation provided for the experience so we're going to go ahead and go through all the criteria sir so the the first one v criterion a1 technical approach and transition plan okay so for a1 i don't have the need to review a1 no need to review as well agreed agreed okay um and just to reiterate so what would be the consensus score for that criteria a consensus score for a1 for fleet genius was 34. just a copy for fleet genius for the a1 criteria and technical approach translation plan and consensus score of 34. for the uh a2 criterion of qualifications okay so for a2 qualifications without the deductions discussed last time based on the documentation presented at the beginning of the meetings about victor um i revised my score um i revised my score from zero i believe i offered that was a3 um we'll go on through all the criteria nobody was there well the deduction were on a2 right the deduction was applied to a2 correct yes so reviewing that qualification i was just uh looking back at my notes because of the information that we captured in my recommended score was zero um i would like to change that evaluation from zero to 17. the max on that one i want to see this is for qualification yeah yeah according to my notes you you know offer the five based on based on the previous discussion yes so with us now removing the performance bond and just based on the qualifications alone i will give fleet genius a 14. in reference to a2 qualifications fleet genius i previously scored a five and based off of the uh new information given with the performance bond not being required in the new solicitation i will increase my score from five two and 12. um for a2 qualifications um i my score will remain the same as a 12. so you guys can go ahead and discuss your consensus okay so we were swimming from 12 or 14 17 um perhaps just maybe expand a bit on those in those scores as well excluding the performance reasoning the other reasons you may have given for the 12 or not because it's considered that to be a repeat of what we said before you want to go through the items listed in the solicitation or in their submission correct correct uh essentially the basis of the 12 the basis of 12 and just a little bit more example please okay and i apologize if i'm making you repeat from no that's fine i'm just not sure we're all prepared we were prepared to do that but um you know with my notes i okay just repeating what i walked through before i i made a note of the user experience that they provided particularly on the principle um i made note of the fact that they identified themselves as a service solution company but um presence in 13 states in 22 contracts i appreciated the bios that were provided the references were strong including the uh the strongest which was denver with 350 card actions per day and they listed the number of cards that they diverted for recycling uh i think in the in the years of the existence of the company back to 2005 i believe it was where they listed 300 000 cards diverted for recycling at that time frame i thought those were all strong attributes those were my notes under their qualification criteria and fiscal standards under my notes that were submitted i just had a one-liner uh established container card service company with a corporate safety um they had a corporate safety program regional it data support um to mr brian's point the references that they had for the denver the 13 years the 13 states and the 22 management companies was a significant ticket value with significant ticket value um that was it and of course i took out the reference i was i chose the 14th thank you all right back to again h2 qualifications play genius uh my reasoning for the upgrade if i said 12 now instead of a five i have eight years of specific card management experience uh that they already have vehicles on inventory um majority at all of personnel already on staff and would be available to start the contract only is the proven and established routing software system with a agenda or agent okay for it was a technical uh a2 for the quality of the qualifications sorry um based on what my summary was um i put that they have the capability and the knowledge to operate a roll card program contract um they have good references they have experience in that or they qualify to do they can do what we need basically okay so so to continue would the committee be comfortable with a consensus score uh 15 or 12 to 17 that's open for the second 15 yes yes this is 14 i'll do 15 yes counter at 14 with two 12s and 17 and 14 i would say that's also 14 14. okay well that was your number that was my i'm stuck right there 14 is it okay all right so we have a consensus score of 14 or a2 great uh consider now insert so to confirm uh complete genius genius for the a2 criterion qualifications i have a 14 out of the 20 points agreed moving on to criteria a3 experience okay so for me criterion a3 experience i don't have a need to review for me as well a3 experience no need to review i would just like some clarification um if there is some to give from maybe the two on that side of the table with experience with bleakiness because to me they're still just based off the timeline of the documents provided with your notices um and the lack of response from uh fleeting is until after the second cure notice and not accepting the the decision of the county to terminate the contract to me that there's more that is not being being said and if you don't have any experience then we'll leave it at that and my score will remain the same uh can you ask me to add on common every time so i don't have experience and in my position i can't recall for sure you know because i was it wasn't in leadership to where i was managing them specifically shane was management and damien had more of the direct communication with their leadership so i knew in passing i heard that it wasn't good but that's speculation then my score for me the separate experience my score it doesn't need to be revisited so just to confirm the uh previous consensus score for experience for fleet genius was a 13. yes that was a consensus score correct in regards to what you're there for experience uh all of a sudden it was us yeah so just to go through the fleet genius um again for the a1 criterion there was no uh change consensus score from the previous meeting was a 34th that remains a 34 for the a2 criterion of qualifications the previous consensus score from last meeting was a six um has been reviewed uh discussed and the new consensus score today is a 14 out of 20 points before the a3 criterion of expense excuse me experience the consensus score from last meeting was a 13. there was no change to that consensus score it remains a 13 out of 15 so we're going to go ahead and move on to the next uh the next one uh would anybody like to revisit the prior evaluation of national card services and or discuss its previous consensus score i would not i would not no thank you no thank you uh would anyone like to revisit the prior evaluation of red rake pacific company and or discuss its previous consensus score uh no i would not well thank you yeah thank you and finally would anyone like to revisit the prior evaluation of water support systems and or discuss its previous consensus score i would that's waste i would not be able to go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go through this i will now review the scoring summary announce the awarded points for total cost and provide subtotals for each firm as applicable again we're going to go ahead and go through an alphabetical order for bay point exterior services for the cost total points they received 23.83 out of 25 points for their a1 criterion of technical approach transition plan they received a they received 27 out of 40 points their a2 criterion for qualifications they received 13 out of 20 for their at i said a2 for qualifications is that correct that's okay for their a3 for experience for bay point exterior services they received 6 out of 15 points their grand total of 69.83 out of 100 points for fleet genius llc for the cost total points they received 25 out of 25 points for their a1 criterion of technical approach and transition plan they received 34 out of 40 points a2 criterion for qualifications they received 14 out of 20 points for the a3 criterion of experience they received 14.76 out of experience they received 13 out of 15 points for a total of 86 for national card services for the cost total they received 24.76 points out of 25 for their a1 criterion of technical approach and transition plan they received 35 out of 40 for the a2 criterion of qualifications they received 17 out of 20 for the a2 criterion of experience they received 14 out of 15 for a total of 90.76 out of 100 points uh waste support systems for the cost total points they received 23.85 out of 25 for the a1 criterion for technical approach and transition plan they received 27 out of 40 for their a2 criterion of qualifications they received 14 out of 20 for their a3 criterion of experience they received 13 out of 15 for a total of 76.79 points out of 100. waste support systems for the cost total points they received 23.85 out of 23.85 out of 25 a1 criterion technical approach and transition plan they received 32 out of 40. their qualifications a2 criterion they received 14 out of 20 for their a3 criterion of experience they received the 13 out of 15 for a total of 82.85 points uh committee members if you can please confirm with the source that i just announced if you agree that any any disagreements or want me to clarify or go over them again please let me know i agree with the scores as you just cited i agree i agree opposers please monitor unit for future updates related to the solicitation if there is nothing else i will go ahead and conclude the reconvened evaluation committee meeting for rfp-26-00349 rocard uh rocard management services thank you have a great day