Good afternoon, everybody, committee members and other parties of interest. This is the Evaluation Committee meeting for RFP 2600364, Countywide Flood Forecasting System. My name is Jamie Richardson, and I am the senior buyer assigned to this project. This meeting is being held in part by means of communication media technology and has been publicly noticed. 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. The recording will also be available after the meeting has ended. If you are watching online today, please ensure that you mute your microphone and turn off your camera for the duration of the meeting. Please be advised that the cone of silence is still in effect. All meetings 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 each committee member to introduce themselves for the record, beginning with the committee chairperson. Good afternoon. My name is Kyle Lillman. I'm the Blood Plane Engineering Manager, Stormwater Engineering Services Section, and the committee chair for this project. I am David Brown with the Stormwater Bottling Team, Hillsborough County. Larry Webster, Stormwater Investigation Manager. Mikael Moberg, Blood Protection Engineering Manager, Hillsborough County Stormwater Services Section. And Ethan Kersey, Procurement Services, is just here as an observer. Thank you. On September 11, 2026, the county received a total of three acceptable proposals in response to RFP 2600364. The Evaluation Committee will discuss the proposals received in alphabetical order. Each proposal is to be evaluated based only on the information provided in the proposal as it correlates to the requirements and evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation. The committee will then agree on a consensus score for each criteria. The Evaluation Committee Chair, Kyle Dolman, will lead today's discussion. Once the committee has finished evaluating a submission, I will announce the awarded points for the total costs. Kyle, I will turn it over to you to lead the discussion on our first proposal. Clearview Land Design, Gail. Okay. Thank you. So, the first vendor is Clearview Land Design. They submitted their product, ClearCast. So, we can start with the first evaluation criteria, which is quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objectives for 40 points maximum. So, in reviewing what they included in the proposal, I think technically, in terms of the model utilized, the accuracy of the result we're going to get out of that, I think it's what we're looking for in terms of utilizing the county watershed management master plan model to a really good extent. Now, part of the proposal or the solicitation was utilize the county WNMP models as the foundation. And it looks like that's what they're proposing to do. So, I think technically, from that end, it's what we're looking for. It, from what I was able to see, it didn't utilize AI, LLMs, machine learning. It relied on the model, the numerical model for the results. So, I was glad to see that as well. Another thing was that, based on what they submitted, I was able to get a good understanding of what the web interface would look like. I mean, that's the other part of this. One part is the current conditions model, the future forecasting model, and then, you know, the way we're going to interact with those is through the web app, web application. And what Clearview submitted, I was able to get a good picture of what that would look like. So, I thought that looked good. And then, it appeared to meet all of the minimum requirements we included in the solicitation. And it also included some value add options, which, from what I was reading, appeared to be included in the proposal and not something we would negotiate later. And these were the high-end forecast, what-if scenarios. So, you know, what if we get more rainfall than is forecasted? What does that look like? And probabilistic flooding dashboard, which, from their proposal, that looked like essentially showing what the design storms. Having those as a point of comparison, being able to see the floodplains for the design events. So, if we have something forecasted out, we have a forecast, we could look at that and say, oh, that looks like it's between a 50 and 100 year or something like that. So, that was good to see if there's a value add there as well. So, based on some of those findings, I was proposing to give Clearview a score of 38 out of the 40 max points for criteria one. And for the technical advisor, they're not giving a score or anything unless we essentially ask for their input. Taylor, Larry. Which, just for the record, David is serving as technical advisor on the high school. Yeah, I'll go ahead. So, for A1, quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county objectives, I thought the provided solution was consistent with the county's objectives. Kyle had mentioned there was no AI and really the model itself was what the system would be relying on for the provided solutions. And they did provide a summary where all of our requirements were either met or exceeded. And based on the submittal, I would score them a 39 out of 40 points. Okay. So, reviewed the submittal and I felt that it appeared to me or exceed all the requirements that we had in what we had requested and bid on. So, the proposal was very clear, well, very well put together. You could easily see that, like, the interfaces and other things seemed to be very, very well done. The training program appeared to be very well put together as well. I just felt that it was up. They had a really good proposal for the quality of what they were proposing. And I gave them 39. You said 39? 39. Okay. I mean, I think 39 works for me as well. I mean, I thought it was very good, very well put together. Again, meeting all of our requirements and then also some value add to it. So, I could certainly come up to 39 if I could propose that as the consensus. I agree with the consensus of 39. I agree. Okay. For the second evaluation criteria, cost. That's auto-calculated, right? That is, sorry, please. Yes. I will announce that after we finish the evaluation. We'll skip past that. So, third criteria, proposer's understanding of the scope and objectives, technical approach, and work plan presented. Again, I thought it was very good. I thought the proposer laid out well how the system meets the county's minimum requirements. I thought the plan was good. Essentially, keeping our county WMMP models solidly is the basis, automating input-output around it. I think they had a good explanation of how initial conditions are handled by carrying model H&H conditions forward between each operational run. I was glad to see that. But also, the schedule was nine months to final acceptance, which is, I believe, in the RFP, it was 12 months was the minimum requirement. So, they're proposing to beat that by three months. And then I thought the training plan and the implementation plan were also good. So, my proposed score for criteria three is 23 of the 25 possible appointments. To kind of add on to what Kyle was saying, proposer's understanding of the scope and objectives, technical approach, and the work plan presented, it provided a detailed representation of how the model would be used and got down into the weeds on some of those important details. And based on what was provided by Clearview, I would also give them a 23 out of 25. Yeah, I thought everything was very well put together again. And all of the technical aspects, the work plan, everything seemed to be just very well put together. So, I gave them a 25. I could certainly come up to 24. I mean, I think that's still reasonable based on my review of the proposal. I could easily come down to 24. Okay. So, consensus, I think that makes sense for 24. I agree with the 24 consensus. Okay. For the final evaluation criteria, notwithstanding costs to be calculated at the end, the proposer's organization and staff qualifications and experience, which is 10 points maximum. Everybody, just to check, receive the references. Correct. Okay. So, I don't need to go over those during the meeting explicitly other than, you know, thoughts on the right now. So, it's correct. So, the references received were all good for Clearview for the projects that they submitted. In their executive summary, they submitted three projects. Two of those included flood forecasting. One of those two actually utilized the county WMMP model. So, that's pretty in line with what we are. With the scope of this project. So, I thought they had good project experience. They did have, I think, only seven staff. But they did have good experience. And the expertise of the staff appears to cover the disciplines that are needed, including, not that it's required. But they also had past experience with Pillsbury County work, Pillsbury County WMMPs and WMMP models. So, I thought overall, they did a good job for that criteria. I propose a score of 9 out of 10. I thought the proposer's organization, staff qualifications, and experience were very high. I thought the examples, the example projects that they provided demonstrated their ability to execute a successful project, especially their project-specific examples utilizing SWMM. I would give them a 9 out of 10. So, I thought that their project team seemed to be very well qualified. It was only seven, but they were very well qualified. And I liked their examples of the projects that they had done, they presented. And I gave them 10. So, I can come down to 9. That works for me. We're splitting hairs at that point between those two. But I think consensus 9 goes that. Agree? Agree. Okay. For their net proposal, they received an 18.2 out of 25 points. For the cost? Yes. So, to confirm, I would like every committee member to say agree. I'm going to announce the scores for Clearview. For the quality of proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objective, they received a 39 out of 40. Agreed. Agreed. For their proposer's understanding of the scope and objectives, technical approach, and work plan presented, they received 24 out of 25 points. Agreed. And for proposer's organization and staff qualifications and experience, they received 9 out of 10 points. Agreed. Agreed. And then, for their net proposal price, they received 18.2 out of 25 points. I do have a question. How is the 18.2 calculated? Is there a formula? Yes. The lowest cost proposal times maximum points. That's like a relative percent difference, perhaps. Yeah. Okay. Lowest. Making sure. Max points. So, it's in relation to the other. Correct. All right. Very good. So, for a total of 81.2 points. Yeah. Check that again, Jim. 91.2. 90.2. You might have dropped the experience. Sorry. 90.2 points. How was that other score to run? Bad calculator. Are we good to go to the next vendor? Yes. Okay. So, the next vendor will be flood map. Right. So, flood map. Starting with the first criteria, quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objectives. I thought, in general, they did a good job, but I also thought there was some ambiguity surrounding the technical methodology of the modeling. So, in the proposal, there is language that I quoted exactly, but it's essentially, you know, we will utilize the county models as the foundation. We will use, you know, open source for the H&H, but then it seems like there's other language that may contradict that, and it's just not clear to me, and I mean, I'm just going to go through and discuss a couple, you know, for discussion in case you guys had a different opinion on that. So, for the hydrology on page 12, if it gets on page 12 of the solution details, so then if you go to page 13, there's a flowchart, figure six, where there's an entire part of that flowchart for AI, parentheses, machine learning. So, based on that, I mean, it appears that there's some utilization of AI and machine learning, AI handling work, machine learning, but then elsewhere, it's essentially saying that, you know, SWIM would be used. So, it's, or the DASH hydrology engine, and the DASH hydraulic modeling platform is a proprietary product. So, it's not 100% clear to me from the technical modeling methodology and how they're doing the hydrology and the hydraulics. So, let's see what else we have here. For the hydraulics on page 13, it talks about in section 1.3.1.2 hydraulics, under the fourth bullet point, coupling the models to real-time data pipelines. There's some language in here about how the models might be treated differently based on where the catchments are located in the system. So, it's talking about upper headwater catchment models. And it's, I mean, it almost implies that the county model would be split up. So, upper headwater catchment models will be configured as rain-on-grid models, receiving inflows directly from forecasts and sort of gridded rainfall data sets. Upstream and midsection river rain models will have a forecast hydrology model as an inland boundary condition fed into downstream SWIM models. And then for the downstream models, coupling the aligned SWIM bond models with dynamic coastal time surge, et cetera. So, it's not really clear to me what's being done there. Maybe it needed more detail to kind of make that clear. And then I think the last thing I had to that end was regarding the colluvial rainfall model. Let's see here. So, that is on page 19, section 1.3.3. So, notes in that section, FloodMAC will build a pluvial rain-on-grid model, which is specifically designed to simulate urban flash flooding from high-intensity rainfall. This will extend the coverage of the standard models, engaged waterways, and coastal regions to capture additional localized flooding in urban areas and unengaged catchment areas. So, what I don't understand is, to me, this implies they're creating this model. It's utilizing something outside of the county SWIM model. Is that what you're seeing with this? It's how I read that. If they are doing something different, it's not clear to me. But then, you know, they're also saying, this will extend the coverage of the standard models, engaged waterways, and coastal regions. So, that, to me, I almost read that as, where we have gauge data, there's a different model associated with that. But in un-gaged areas, we have to build this colluvial model. And my thought is, we have our county WMFP models. Without any gauge data, they predict flooding based on the information feeding into it. So, why would we need a different modeling approach for un-gaged areas? The gauge data, you know, there certainly, we want that. But to me, you know, that comes in more for setting the initial conditions, right? Obviously, calibration verification, kind of a standard approach there. But setting initial conditions, confirming those conditions before, you know, initializing a forecast scenario. But for all the predictive, from the predictive side of it, you know, I was under the impression that would be the modeling. So, why would we have this colluvial model in un-gaged catchments? And then, in gauge catchments, we have different models for forecasting it. So, it wasn't clear to me, I don't have the answer necessarily, but I mean, the way I read it, we have different types of models, and not necessarily a, I almost, I hesitate to use the word integrated, because there may, there was language in the report about how they would integrate, and they may split models only where there's not flow between submodels, things like that. So, there may be a plan for integration, but I guess I'm just not sure on why is there a feed for different types of models. So, that was, that was another question. Also, with splitting models, I mean, while we're on that subject, you know, I understand if there's not flow between, you know, two basins, you can split the models and rub them in parallel and get the same results if they were together, because there's no interaction. But that's based on the rainfall or, you know, the surge, the input that you put into it, right? It might rain two inches and there's no interaction, but what if it rains 15 inches, then there might be. So, how are we making that decision? Are we splitting them based on no interaction in a 100-year event? You know, also, with our hydrology, there is a lot of interconnectivity in our watersheds. So, that's, that could be a process to split those. So, those are a few things. And then, I think the last thing for this criteria was the web app user interface. They did a good job explaining what it could contain, you know, what would be on the web application. And there are screenshots of past projects, but I think those past projects, the user interface they're showing for the past projects, those are more geared towards impact assessment, like postcasts, whereas we're also looking for the forecast. They also do list available widgets, but I think it's, what it may have been lacking was, you know, what would our user interface actually look like for this project? So, those were some of the thoughts I had for criteria one, and of the available 40 points, I went with a post score of 33 points. Yeah, my reading through this, very, very robust submittal for this section, but there were a lot of questions with it, and there weren't, in my opinion, I'm left with two questions, specifically on that fluvial model, as Kyle had mentioned in his discussion, and, you know, questions of that nature regarding, potentially, if they're going to attempt to split the model to provide calculations, which is just a, it's an unknown, I would score it a 30. I thought that they generally, in all the basic requirements, some areas that I was a little confused on as well, I'm going to need to repeat what everybody else has said, but it's very similar, um, and, uh, generally, I thought they understood the, uh, scope and objectives that we were looking for, but still, it just didn't, just seemed to be some questions for me, and, uh, which were some of those that were already stated, and I gave them a, a 32. You said 30? Mm-hmm. 32, 33, um, and people are all in the same neighborhood, I could certainly come down to 32, I think that's higher than if it is reasonable, based on your review. What did you have, 33? I had 33. No, I think 32 is reasonable. But, I propose a consensus of 32. Agreed, agreed. Skipping over the criteria number two to criteria number three, the proposer's understanding of the scope and objectives, technical approach, and work plan presented, um, I thought they did a fairly good job, um, the proposer laid out well how the system would meet the counting minimum requirements, um, overall, the plan is, is good, uh, it is okay, I mean, there's the aspects of the technical approach that we already discussed, um, that may be missing from the proposal, um, or otherwise unclear. Um, the schedule is 12 months, which meets, you know, what we were, you know, advertising is what we'd like to have. Uh, it doesn't exceed it, uh, but it meets it, uh, and, and, and 12 months to final acceptance, I should say. And, based on my review, I'm proposing, uh, a score of 20 out of the maximum 25 points. For proposer's understanding of scope and objectives, technical approach, and work plan presented, I thought, um, a relatively good several months that Carla mentioned, I'd give them a score of 21 points. I said this in the first one here, but it's, it really goes into this one, is that I thought that they, they had a, uh, good, uh, good understanding of the scope and the objectives, uh, and I thought the work, or I thought the work plan was laid out okay as well, but, uh, had some, just didn't feel right on everything, uh, but I gave it 22 out of 25, eight, they're on the same area between 20, 21, 22, I think consensus 21, proposed 21 for a consensus. That's a great, so that I agree. And go to an census, 21. And then the final criteria, notwithstanding cost, uh, the proposers of organization and staff qualifications and experience, uh, but not have great references, uh, or rather the responses to those reference requests, they have, I think, uh, great staff, great technical and academic experience. I think there was a, um, a general lack of experience submitted in the proposal, um, with county watersheds or watershed models, uh, familiarity with the county watershed and watershed models. In the executive summary, they submitted three projects. Um, it seems like, um, it seems like these projects, unless you guys found different, didn't include the forecasting component, um, but rather included the current conditions or postcast, hidecast products. Um, I will note that one of the projects, I believe it was the FEMA, the DHS S&T FEMA operational data analytics project, um, they did note in here that they are also exploring use cases for forecast, uh, across FEMA's operations. So that, that may be something they're looking to do. Um, but if I'm looking in, um, I'm looking in here, nowcast, postcast, nowcast, roadsafe impact analytics, which, since I mentioned that, the roadsafe impact analytics, there was, uh, in this proposal, they did note that they could integrate with ways, um, for roads projected to be flooded, um, and, you know, essentially have that pop up on ways, which I thought that would be great. Um, but it appeared that it's, um, not included in the, uh, proposed cost. If I read that correctly, uh, so we can't award points based on that if it's not included in the cost, um, but going back to the, um, stack qualifications, um, for those reasons, I gave them an eight out of 10. Yeah. Kyle, those, um, the provided projects that none of them utilize swim, did they in those? Let's go back. Correct me. Um, just don't want to, I want to make sure you're right here. Yeah, so, FDEM, um, let's see, it was Navcast and Postcast, so I'm not seeing anything in there about the H&H, um, software used for forecast in general. Uh, not that it has to specifically, it has to be open, it has to be open source, just, right, but, um, swim is more applicable to what we're doing, but any, any open source is okay, but swim is, it's more applicable towards what we're doing, right? Yes, swim is a, you know, well-known open source H&H application, the county models are currently in swim, um, and with, you know, uh, in the solicitation, it was noted, uh, that we would like, as a minimum requirement, uh, those models be used as the foundation for the solution. There is no requirement that swim has to be used, but a, um, and I find a model meeting the minimum FIP requirements, um, essentially a vetted model that FEMA accepts, um, is a minimum requirement, and to answer your point, I don't see, um, I don't see the model used for the DEM project, because, likely, because, um, there's no forecast, it's now passed at Postcast, which could be accomplished through gauges, and, uh, I'm not sure. If a DEM engages, potentially, it depends on the area, the hydraulics and, uh, hydrology of the area, and some areas that may work. And we, you know, we just don't know, um, then the DHS, uh, S&T FEMA project, uh, let's see here. Nowcast and Postcast, live blood intelligence, real-time blood intelligence, don't see anything about a model used for forecasts. Yeah, that was kind of my, that was one of the challenges I was having, reviewing those example projects. For Norfolk, for that project, they may have used the glubule, let me see, so real-time to be used. Yeah, I don't see it on that one either, so, yeah. I, uh, give them a seven, half a ten. Todd? Well, I thought the staff and the organization, uh, qualified and seemed to be, uh, pretty good. The references were good. A few other questions about, again, some of the things I already mentioned, but, uh, I give them an eight out of the ten. I propose a consensus eight. Agree. Consensus eight. Agree. Okay. Their net proposal price for flood map, they received a seventeen point eight out of twenty-five points. And they received a total of seventy-eight point eight points. Did you want to go back through and ask us, individually, just to verify? Yes. So, for their quality of proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objectives, uh, they received a thirty two out of forty points. Agreed. Agreed. For proposer's understanding of the scope and objectives, technical approach and work plan presented, they received a 21 out of 25 points. Agreed. And for proposer's organization and staff's qualifications and experience, they received 8 out of 10 points for a total of 78.8 points. We agree with that. The next vendor that will be evaluated is Wolfhard, Corcoran. The first criteria, quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objectives. I thought from a technical perspective, it looked good. It looked like they were preserving. They were doing a good job utilizing the county models as the foundation. They did well with that and explaining that, explaining the model initialization based on hot starts, utilizing gauge data, rerunning the model with the observed data to initialize the forecasting simulation. I did know they had 99 percent uptime, which is good. And I know we're not comparing submittals directly, but there were other submittals with higher uptime, 99 percent. It does sound good. But, you know, that is one of the things we want to consider of when there is an emergency. We have a hurricane bearing down on us. We want this to be running. We want it to be available. So I will note that solution details, I thought they were good. They included information on what the web app user interface would include. But I think similar with prior submittal, it was not entirely clear what the county user interface would look like. They did, you know, be a narrative, discuss what would be included. But we didn't really get to see what that would actually look like. We did ask for the details of the user interface and the solicitation. But overall, I thought the technical approach was very good. Little to find a ball with that. So I propose for this criteria to give a score of 35. So did you go through and check to make sure that all of the proposal requirements were either met or exceeded in the in the civil? Yeah, I was reviewing that. You know, I certainly could have missed something. Was there something specific that you wanted to go over? No, just there was a nice and the other proposals, which we're not comparing, but it's a nice, concise, checklist that allowed for a very easy, very easy. You know, make sure your T's across to your eyes are dotted. Yeah, I didn't. I didn't notice anything and going through it where they wouldn't have met a minimum requirement. I didn't ask this with the others just to be specific. I didn't ask this with the others because there was an itemized checklist for each of the requirements that was provided with each of the others. So I don't want to make it seem like there's an inconsistent question. It's a good. We should bring it up because it wasn't as clear as the other. Do you know what would answer that or? I'm just curious if you've noticed anything where they wouldn't have met the minimum requirements. I didn't, but you know, because it wasn't explicit with the other ones, you know, I could have been overlooked. Nothing that did not meet the minimum requirement. There were, you know, the we have the preferences of the native swim and then the mediation from that. They have still meeting the minimum requirement and my interpretation of it. OK, yeah. What about, I noticed in there, let's see, that would be a technical approach, I think. All right. For this category, I give them a 34 out of 40. OK. We thought there, I thought the ProScope appeared to meet the, you know, the basic requirements that we had requested, advertised the technical approach. The way they laid it out, it was a lot of technical information there, very well laid out. It was a little harder to figure things out than some of the other presentations, even though, you know, we're not really comparing them, but saying it because it wasn't laid out, you really had to kind of give it a lot of thought as to was it meeting this or that or whatever. So it was, they did appear to meet everything, though, the basic stuff, but I just had a, just certain things just seemed like there was something with the, I only gave them, I gave them a 32. So here, 35, 34, 32. We're fairly close. Okay, Larry, you're a little lower. A little for the reasons that you gave there. Yeah. I think we could propose a census of 34. I mean, I think for us, that makes sense. And on the lower end of what we were thinking. I can easily come up and said it's just so it's a very technical presentation, just they could have made certain aspects of it more clear. That would have been easier to evaluate. I agree with the consensus of 34. 34. Great. Great. Jumping to criteria number three, proposers understanding of the scope and objectives, technical approach and important plan presented. This one, again, I thought the approach was good. With this one, the training plan, it essentially stated that it was going to meet the minimum requirements. We just had that discussion about potentially the solution details. It may not be explicitly clear, although it does meet the minimum requirements. With the training plan, they pretty much laid out that it was going to meet the minimum requirements. But it provided very little other detail. You know, when I read that, it's essentially, you know, we provided the solicitation, you know, what we would expect. And it's pretty much that information that put in there with very little additional detail. So for me, I suppose it meets the minimum requirements because they're saying they're going to meet the minimum requirements. But I didn't get a lot beyond that. The training plan. It seemed a little generic. The training plan didn't. Well, I thought the implementation plan also seemed very generic. I didn't see a whole lot of project specific information in the implementation plan. It's there's a schedule that's project specific. But then beyond that, it's it's really, you know, Wolpert information on Wolpert their their approaches, you know, as a whole, which does touch on what we asked, you know, mitigating risk, things like that. Your general company approach on that, but I would have liked to have seen something a little more specific to this project. And I didn't get that from that. Schedule has final acceptance of 11 months from what I was seeing. Yeah, 11 months, which is an improvement on the 12 that was listed in solicitation. So based on, you know, that I am proposing a score of 16 out of the possible 25 points. So in reviewing Wolpert Submittal, they noted that they were going to conceptualize the hydrology utilizing PC Swim. Is that correct? So I believe I saw that in there. Yes. And to me, PC Swim is it's proprietary. You have to you have to pay for it. But that's not that's kind of a it's small. It's small. It seems like maybe the bigger issue is Hillsborough County has an add on a free add on that will conceptualize the hydrology. So kind of just seems like a misstep. Why? If you they should know that they should put that in there. They that could be utilized to conceptualize the hydrology rather than the PC Swim. And then PC Swim is proprietary. So there were some things that that was one thing. And then in addition to the things that Kyle had mentioned, I gave them a 17. And I think touching on PC Swim, it's important to look at. Let's just review this since we're talking about it. What was in the solicitation? So it was the model. This applies to both the current conditions and flood forecasting models shall utilize numerical modeling software that meets applicable FEMA and FIP requirements and shall maintain at a minimum the level of detail and resolution providing them accounting WMP models. So that's saying you have to use a numerical model that's on that FEMA list. Right. But then we also discuss that we prefer solutions that are open source. So we may award. We may score more favorably towards open source. So I think that's what we're talking about PC Swim to an extent. Right. So in Wolpert submittal, they note that for the hydraulics, the EPA Swim 5 hydraulic engine will be used for hydraulic computations. So my understanding is the EPA Swim 5 hydraulic engine is open source. And then the hydrologic component, which is what you were referring to with the NLE add on or add in hydrology tool. The hydraulic or hydrologic component of the existing WMP models will be converted to the PC Swim alternative runoff methodology using NRCS, SES dimensionless unit hydrograph methodology. So it sounds like PC Swim will be utilized for hydrology. So, yes. I mean, from what you're saying, a portion of the numerical modeling will be open source. A portion may not be. And we do have the county in the open source add in tool, which may go to the understanding portion of the criteria, but it isn't from what was in the solicitation. It's not a minimum requirement so long as PC Swim is on that female list. So just kind of note that. And your score was? 17. 17. Okay. Okay. Well, I thought the scope appeared to meet our minimum requirements generally. And there was a lot of technical presentation and fairly well presented. It has some questions with the PC Swim converting and the back and forth. And just to me, it's open source for more errors and more issues. But this is allowed. But it was just something that I noticed. It appeared to understand the scope and everything. So generally, the presentation was pretty good. I gave the 19. 19. 16, 17, 19. Then they got probably a little bit low. 17. The fine coming up since this 18 consensus 18 makes sense. I mean, for me, again, the training planning implementation plan with the items that you know, I would have liked to see more there. I guess that's not to say, you know, if selected, they wouldn't do a good job with that. I just don't if there's uncertainty there. So I think they're saying it'll meet the minimum requirements. I could come up and propose consensus score of 18. I'm good with 18. 18. And the final criteria aside from cost and the proposers organization and staff qualifications and experience. I thought it was pretty good. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. And I guess that's something I could touch on. The Flettenberg County project also utilized machine learning, as did, I think, the Horry County project. But my understanding of the City of Palindra project is they utilized machine learning as a complementary aspect. I don't know the details on how that how that works, how that prioritization might work between machine learning and whatever your model result is. And they did touch on it in the in the submittal as well, you know, that one of the things they do is, you know, they have this machine learning model or aspect of this kind of typical solution. But I forget the exact language. It said something along the lines of, you know, the county doesn't need to need to use this. We can we can do it without the machine learning. But just for the submitted experience and submitted projects, I'll note that the Flettenberg County project, it did include forecast, utilized 2D HECRAS and machine learning. So I thought the projects they submitted were pretty good. I mean, there were some slight variations, but all in all, I thought they were pretty good. I thought they had good qualifications. You know, I do think there was some lack of familiarity with county watersheds, county hydrologic and hydraulic conditions, county models, which, again, isn't a prerequisite, but it's it's good to have that understanding of our hydrology in this region. So overall, I gave a score of 8 out of 10. Yeah. And to echo what Kyle was saying, I thought it was relatively strong. The example projects and experience, they were pretty solid and consistent with what we're trying to do here. Really, the differentiator here, in my opinion, I also scored them an 8, was the specific Hillsborough County experience and the familiarity, or lack thereof, in the Seminole. What was your score? 8? Okay. Good. So right there with you guys on the projects, I thought they were pretty similar to what we were doing. I think their staff was well-qualified and didn't see any issues with the staff and the experience that they provided, and I give them an 8. Proposed a consensus of 8. Agreed. Agreed. Okay. So to summarize for Woolport, for quality of the proposed system and its ability to achieve the county's objectives, they received 34 out of 40 points. Agreed. Agreed. For proposers' understanding of the scope and objectives, technical approach, and work plan presented, they received 18 out of 25 points. Agreed. Agreed. And proposers' organization, staff qualifications, and experience, they received 8 out of 10 points. Agreed. Agreed. And they received 25 out of 25 for net proposal price, for a total of 85 points. So I will now go back through and read the subtotal for each firm. Maybe if you would please confirm by saying agreed after I announce the score for each firm. For Clearview land design, they received a total of 90.2 points. Agreed. Agreed. For flood map, they received a total of 78.8 points. Agreed. Agreed. And for Woolport, they received a total of 85 points. Agreed. Proposers, please monitor UNO for future updates related to this solicitation. If there is nothing else, that will conclude the evaluation meeting for RFP 2600364, county-wide flood forecasting system. Have a great day. Have a great day.