Hey, good afternoon committee members and other parties of interest. This is the evaluation committee meeting for RFP 2600369, Insurance Consulting and Brokerage Services. My name is Joe Wright and I am the 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 the 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 make sure to mute your microphone and turn off your camera for the duration of the meeting. Please be advised that the cone of silence is still into effect. All meeting and correspondence must include name. 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 chair. Good afternoon, Brenda Cogdell, Division Director, Risk Management and Safety. Cindy Shukla, Human Resources, Fiscal Manager. Randy Seniors, Hillsborough County Water Manager. Harry Arias, Human Resources, Workers' Comptain Lead Manager. Pamela Thiel, Risk Management Claims Manager. I'm an observer. Perfect. Well, thank you, everybody. On August 26, 2026, the county received a total of five proposals in response to RFP 2600369. 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, Brenda Cogdell, will lead today's discussion. So, Brenda, I'm going to turn it over to you to lead the discussion on our first proposer, Alliant Insurance Services. Thank you, Jeff. You're welcome. All right. Everybody's had a chance to review it. I thought that Alliant did an excellent job of looking at our existing plan and identifying specifics related to what they can do with what we already have based. I like that they have a lot of things that we can use. The acapella, where we're struggling with our asset management and getting a good list of insured properties, being able to access that acapella system, it's huge. They've got some, it looks like they had SVU participation as well, and they've got a 13-person dedicated service team with extensive experience and a couple of local people, which I really like. Other thoughts? Yeah, I had all that. Also, yeah, let me also explain it to AI, of course, another very extensive A2, which I didn't see much in the other ones. You mentioned the acapella model, that was definitely really strong. Their sizing of T7 was also very strong. The only thing that I did see, and I didn't know it's the other one, but they did say that for the appraisal, they will be using 30-person, they'll be an extra charge, which I think is usually standard, but I did mention that it was an extra charge for people. I didn't see much emphasis on the safety initiatives, and they capped it at 50 hours. And the other one that I mentioned, I think some of them did, but and then I made you say that they customized the training, which was a positive to the county's environment. I did like also that they mentioned about our water program and where we might be able to make some changes, or at least with that back again. Andy? Yeah, and I agree. I mean, you stole some of my thunder, both of you, but the water part was was impressive because it, yeah, always improvements can be made. I like the idea that it was 13 or 14 staff members and some local. I just think it's very important, personally, to have some local folks that are familiar with the Tampa Bay area and kind of, you know, our county and what we do. So I was impressed with that. I agree with you. They have a lot of good programs that I think would be the ambition to you. And then customizing the training. We always came into the training. Yeah, we're unique. It's not customizable. That's magical. It's good. I think, but what did you think about the, and I wasn't sure how I thought about that with the underwriting that they have no wholesale ownership risk? I guess maybe the others do, but could that be like a positive or negative or what? I wasn't. I think they have access to the pool market, so I think it might make them less advice. Yeah. Yeah, that's why I'm thinking so. Yeah. And it's cool, basically. I also like that they have a national property conference where they invite the underwriters in in so that we can actually talk to them. We get a chance to do that at another conference that Pam and I attend, but you know, it's just looped in with a lot of other things. So getting with similar jurisdictions and talking to underwriters about our program that can influence our cost is a huge benefit. All right. So are we ready to talk scores? All right. I gave them some 45 to 47. So I think we're going to look first at criteria number one, and for the record, I'll read that off to everybody. It's the proposer's understanding of the scope and objectives, technical approach, and work plan presented, and that has a maximum score of 50 points. And then the criteria number two in this case is going to be 30 points max, and it's proposers, organization, and staff qualifications and experience. So in this case, we'll go around for criteria one first. Turn audio on. All right. Hello. I just switched it over to my computer. If anybody can go ahead and send me a Teams call. Let me know if you can still hear me. If so, we'll just carry out the rest of the meeting on my laptop. Yeah, we got you, Joe. Looks like the service hub had died. All right. Yeah, we are getting some hands up. So I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to flip this around. It is still recorded. All right. Thank you, everybody. That was greatly appreciated. This is what we're going to do. Yeah. Yeah, I hope so. All right. So just wanted to let everybody know, we did go through criteria number one. So we had a 45, a 48, a 46, and a 47. So if you can just discuss between yourselves and find a good consensus score for criteria one. I was extremely critical. So I'm on the low end of that totem pole. But I did put, actually, I raised at 45, 47. So can we all agree that 47, 47, 47 score for criteria one? Yes. All right. And for criteria two, I gave them a 26. Experience on those six. I had 27. I'm 25. I had 28. And you had 26, 26. Again, I'm all too critical. So I can move up to 26. Can everybody support 26? It's 26. Okay. Got a 26 there. And the next vendor we're going to be looking at is Arthur J. Gallagher. So if you wanted to start it or Bindi wanted to start this one. So I'll complete one to you. But the safety program was very strong. I suppose, you know, they did cap it where you get 10-3 in an annual, annual timeframe, but that was okay. They said we could switch it out every year. So I think it was pretty good. And they had a lot to choose from. So I did like that. And analytics, those were all, you know, pretty good. I think we've done analytics. Those are pretty good comparatively. They have a great presence in Florida. You know, a lot of experience. Over 100 years of history. Wow. The turnaround time, you know, it wasn't bad at 24 hours, but it was enjoyed maybe one of the three plus hours. So, but it was still not too bad. It was like, oh, I thought it was even better. I did like the brand canvas approach, you know, direct accountability and you go Thursday and like kind of take a look at it, right? And see if another model might work or not. I did like that. There wasn't much mention of AI in that. There's no environment that we're heading into. There's a lot of outside of here. Do you guys have anything to do, Dara? Well, I mean, in this 100 years, they do have an awful lot of counties, Florida counties, entities. And as far as the experience, there's a lot of people that have been there for 20 plus years. I do like the safety training platform that they mentioned. And then also under, of course, underneath the workers' comp product there. I did also note that I like the blank canvas approach. We had Gallagher when I first got here. We got for a reason, but it's a different staff. So. And I do just want to clear up too. We just got to focus on what was in their proposal. Thank you. So the lead, they got two former risk managers on staff, which is huge. They did discuss the builders of this program, which I thought was a plus because we have a lot of things going on on the water side with that. I thought the lead team that they assigned to us within the 10 years experience primarily, that there's background with a lot of background people that are presented, but the lead team assigned to us seems relatively new to the field. There's 10 years or in that range. No, I think we can go into the scoring. We wanted to start off with criteria number one. Give them a 30. And a 47. And a 29. And a 3. And a range. Yeah. All right. So let's just kind of look at why a 47 thing. You know, I like the brain canvas approach. You know, their analytics design was very strong. Cast modeling capabilities. The teams that are strong with what I had here, but that will go under the second category. So maybe you and I were around the same range. Your thoughts? I had some concerns about that. I didn't see the AI party, the way things are going these days. I mean, that did concern me a little bit. And I was, I thought the turnaround time was just okay, you know. Any thoughts? I'm willing to go. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of the Orlando lead team. Orlando's not far. So I still have some concern about the lead team of San to us. But I would not be taking that into account on this particular criteria. I mean, should we be? Because I would. I'm just saying that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So I can get to 35. Convince me. So I mean, you know, I was comparing what they could do based on what we requested, right? And I really thought they all could at different levels though. So I kind of ranked mine based on can they do what we asked them to do, right? So if there was something, I guess, particularly that you thought, yes, no, this was good. Maybe I missed that. Or I didn't know the details. I would feel more into this, right? Than the technical aspect. I mean, especially that baby didn't stick out to you and I didn't stick out to me and his children. Oh, Randy, can you, can you go? Can you move or you're good? I can move. You have good faith. You have the basis for me. Yeah. Between that. I mean, I'm able to go like 30 or 31, but that's probably it. Yeah. So can you maybe you guys help me understand what, you know, compared to the one that we already discussed, what is it that this one maybe was lacking? Was it they post? I mean, I like their blank canvas approach. You know, that's pretty good. I was looking for blank canvas, which everybody got our stuff. You know what our program looked like. Where was the effort to show me what you could do with the program? Okay. Because everybody got the data. Right. The conversations around continuing to buy insurance. We've been doing that and we need to have a, I was looking for a more strategic approach to how we're going to run the program. And so if you, if you had all this data that we provided to you, you could, I basically wrote, you would be saying a generic proposal, but it's how I feel. Okay. And I was going to say it's, it was generic to me. Yeah. It could have covered, you know, it's just generic. So sorry. That's right. Everybody okay for that 33 consensus score is what I'm hearing? Would you like to discuss it further? We can, to that standpoint, yes. I do see what they, they could probably get a little more from that. So when you say that, right? So, so maybe three, five. Okay. They got a COI program. It's an additional cost, but they do offer it. Is that a core 360 different than what you had before? Because they said something about a core 360 process. Whatever. I didn't know if that was anything different. It wasn't. It wasn't. It wasn't. It wasn't. It wasn't. It wasn't. It wasn't. It wasn't. It was 35. That's what we're going with. Okay. 35 for criteria number one. Okay. Now we can go to criteria number two for Arthur J. Gallagher. And, um, a strong bench, but assigned to us. And, um, I gave him a 20. 25. And I wasn't that all for you, but yeah. Okay. 22. It's a good thing. We have some, but they, people that are going to be working with you. All right. So let's see what I got here. We got the two strong risk managers on staff. They're not assigned to us, but they are available. Um, that is good. The training classes, the 10 free classes. It doesn't seem like a lot, but okay. But they're free and we can change them. 25. Yeah. Can we all agree that 22 is about where we should. 22. 22. 22. All right. The, the next firm that we're going to be looking at is Marsh, McLean, McClendon agency. Uh, let's go ahead and, uh, if you wanted to, um, I'm going to ask someone, I came from an emergency at a plan. I don't, but they were read my notes. Okay. So I don't think I'd be fair to, okay. No worries. Yeah. You got it. Uh, how about you tell me what you got? Yes. They don't get me to squeeze me reading my own notes. Um, interesting. They have a city of Tampa. They don't have a view from four entities. And you do just want to, uh, cut in just for the record. Uh, we cannot use the location as a basis for our evaluation scores, just because it's not explicitly written in our criteria for either criteria one or two. Okay. Thank you. Just for the records aware. That was fun. I was looking at some of the references and stuff as far as in Florida, Florida market is what I was looking at. Okay. Yeah. So they don't have a, it seems a lot of ports, just the one with a lot of reports. Again, I don't have my big screen here. So I'm trying to get a little snippets, um, but I don't know what you think. Where their lead is the former city of Tampa risk manager, um, which is, which is a plus well experienced, um, that that's a, a big added benefit. Um, I put the fifth strength, um, again, you know, leading with that city of Tampa, which manager on the background, they have current references, but, um, not necessarily like us for the most part. And I didn't really see the added value units put in there, the extra things that you can offer us. And again, everybody got what we're currently doing and nobody seemed to have jumped on that to go. Okay. I've identified these things where there's some opportunity that, um, that's the, uh, technical approach as detailed to the others. Yeah. Um, and then also the analytical tools, they mentioned everything on there, but I have no view saying that, um, that's, uh, then you have compared to the other analytical tools for them as well as they didn't have, we say they stayed 24, seven rapid responsibilities, but they didn't detail things off like the other one in terms of different categories and types, but they didn't mention that it would be 24, seven responsibilities. Scoring, I guess on the 30. And then, so just to make it clear for everybody, let's just start with criteria number one. Criteria number one. Okay. And then that's your score. And then just a little, uh, summary of why you gave them that. Um, the, basically the best strength, um, references and then the no added benefits noted and the could have been higher, but you didn't, you didn't sell it. There were no, you tell me what else you would provide. And at 35, I think I'm going to buy all the stuff, but, um, I can go along the same line just to compare it to what I had before. But part of it was that I don't think it was that detailed kind of what Brenda might think, you know, for a date long. Mine is a 29, none of that. Um, my reasoning is I'm like Brenda, the references, references, we're good. Um, but again, given the material that each one received, I didn't, I can use the word generic, but it didn't, they didn't seem to pinpoint or zero in on any, uh, any of the criteria or any of the, uh, information that we were seeking didn't seem to, it didn't kind of seem generic. They didn't seem to focus on any of those. Okay. Um, 31, um, as far as what they're going to be offering, there's really no programs that and, um, you know, with the, with the staffing, there's some that have years of experience and there's some that are. So we're at 30, 31, 29, 35. We're closer in than we've been with some of the others. A little better. But again, yeah, I did this strength, but I was just looking for more detail for what we're thinking in terms of AI and something to address the water, the utility issues. I'm not in there. I'm at 30, but again, I think I'm being really strong and the others are pushing forward more. So I could probably get, give them more latitude and be 32. 32. I can do 32. 32. 32. You can't do 32. I'm sorry. Wait, we're looking at criteria. We're looking at criteria. We're on the right criteria. Got it. Yeah. Yeah. I lost my train. Oh, wait. Oh, no worries. We're moving on to criteria two now. All right. Criteria two. Just a little summary of why you're giving 20. Lack of detail. Generic response. And so didn't really give me anything to add. The bench transport's fine. Um, led by experienced people for the most part. Probably do. Now looking at it, 23. Yeah. Yeah. Probably go up. Probably with a little heart. I have 23. Okay. All right. I have 19. Just lack of detail. 22. All right. 19, 22, 23, 23. Looking at my notes to see. It could have been more robust on analytics. So that's, but I feel good about the 23, 23, 23. School of 23 for criteria number two. All right. So now we're moving on to the vendor named risk management associates, and they're doing businesses, Brown and Brown public sector. So let's go ahead and let's talk about criteria number one, which again, just as a reminder, is the understanding of the proposer's scope and objectives, a technical approach and work plan presented. So if you wanted to just list off your score and give the reason on why you gave that score. I think 35, um, looks like a small dedicated team, um, relatively the ones assigned to us, relatively new to the market, 10 years or thereabouts. Nothing jumped out at me in terms of detail and response. It was, again, a generic response that it lacked. What other than continuing to reduce the premiums? What else can we do? Nothing on the utility program still. Of course. Yeah, I'm kind of 40 and going with limited details as well. Um, let's see, I think it's like quantum that the analytics I had was not bad, but, you know, means, um, as though I didn't, the law facility, I wasn't like counting, so I didn't do the other piece, but I lost data and training, but it's okay. We had the meeting with the underwriters, we had that. I don't know how helpful that was. Um, maybe predictive analytics, they said, but I didn't see any really meant, you know, explicitly, but related to AI, um, type of use. It meant that there was strong market leverage, but it just wasn't that in detail. I'm kind of getting part of it, so I'm talking a little bit on that. Great. Uh, I, you know, I have 36 again. I agree. It seemed like it was limited with the detail. And the utility site, I think, seemed to really be lacking there. That unless I'm missing something, that's a good, it isn't going to be a huge part. So I was, I was okay with staffing and that, but mainly just kind of lack of detail and the non utility information or data just didn't seem to be there. With the workers card, um, I was, um, they told you how much they, they over the course of 2023, but nothing really to offer you what they're going to be working in to increase that. So it would be more knowing your program that they can provide, provide you more. So like, oh, 39, sorry. Thank you. Okay. 35, 40, 36, 39. In the 30s. Okay. Helen, I'm going to go down, I'm looking at compare, like, you know, I think mine, when I read them, comparing them all together, again, with Gallagher, I have them at 47, right? But I thought they want less than Gallagher. So I agree. Come down for those, um, for the point of, uh, I think it's the group, probably, yeah, some of the 30s. 36. 36. And now criteria number two, which is the proposer's organization, staff qualification, and experience. Um, dedicated team, small, um, less experience than some of the others, but they've got that strength behind them. Uh, I gave them a 22. Randy. I was, uh, having, make sure, you know, 24. Uh, 22. If you could just expand on why you gave them that score to, when you go back around on the table. Oh. Thanks. I mean, they do have a team, and they do have, um, seasons team, and they, um, it's the same team that you have working with you now, but that's been working, um, so. Yep. Uh, same. Mine was, I mean, I was okay with the number of staffing, it seemed like I wasn't, um, any experience that they have seemed to be good. Um, I was a little unclear on the organization and what they present or will present. Yeah. Yeah. I'm very lucky. My senior staff had 30 plus years, but that was only at that level. Um, so that was a 57 and then kind of like that. So do we have a consensus score? 22. 22. 22. All right. Thank you. All right. Moving on to the fifth and final vendor. In this case, it's going to be Southeast Series of Lockton Companies, LLC. And again, let's go ahead and talk about criteria number one. Give them, uh, your score and the reason that you gave them that score. Okay. Lockton presented a very detailed proposal. I like their approach in terms strategically of everything's not about buying more insurance. You need to find, or at least explore other ways to do things. So I, I really like that. Um, they're strong financially, they all are, but they've been around a while. Um, I like their marketing strategy, I think they talked a little bit more about the utility program as well. And they bothered to look at the capital projects that we have in place and what could possibly be done. And they also had some other, um, got some preferred pricing with, um, some other vendors that we are already considering, Origami Risk being one and their, um, client facing website. I really like being able to go in and see our programs and see everything and be emailing going, can you send me this, send me, send me that, and it's stored in a box. I really like being able to go to their website and deal with myself. So with that, I gave them a 42 on that. Okay. Um, yeah, I did, I did like all the stuff that you mentioned. Um, they do have an online safety, um, training they mentioned. They give my detail on it. I found that on that, their modeling seemed to be pretty good, you know. They had, um, staffing and all that stuff was expensive, but that was, well, lined up, um, in-person, underwriter meetings. I did like, they're decentralized for things. I think that that was, um, yeah, they mentioned direct market access, and the other one had to, um, they, they seemed, you know, heavy on the technology piece, but there was no mention of actual AI, but everything on it was pretty, um, I think that it was a, they say, it was a detail proposal, uh, stuff, so, like, of course, I have a 41. I would say, I was happy to see the utility part was, was mentioned, uh, and I, actually, I thought that the detail was, like, very detailed. I thought it was pretty, one of the most, if not the most detailed, and the longevity of, uh, uh, the company in general, and just, and the work they do, I was impressed with, uh, half of 41. Okay, 45, um, proposal, very thorough. I do like the, uh, technology, the portal they've provided. It's kind of interesting. They do have in-house, kind of we have in-house attorneys, but they have in-house attorneys in-house, you know, so that was kind of interesting, and then their, um, the training, the loss, you know, the loss control tools, and then the training with people, I like, I think we are with 42, 47, 41, 45. I know that I was, I'm hard, I've been really hard, I've been, I probably, probably very comfortably do 43, if anybody wants to tell me why I should do more, if it's a very detailed proposal. Very detailed. Very detailed. Very detailed. That's about that. That's about that. That's about that. I think I still have jazzed in many of the other ones. That's about that. That's about that. That's about that. Yeah, they have it, but they didn't detail it, so. Yeah. Yeah. So what did you say you're going to go to? 43, 44. I'm going to try it on the other one, so I'm going to go down a little bit. 44. 44. All right. 44. Now we can move on to criteria number two. A lot of experience on, on this team. Not only did a team sign to us, but very strong behind that, that if somebody should leave, they got really strong, that strength. Okay. And it covers a lot of areas. And the team that's assigned to you? Yeah. Well, it's a reckless excuse. I gave them a 25. 26 for them? I'm fine. Staffing. Randy? 26. 26. 23, 25, 26. What do you have on them? 25. 25. 25. 25. 26. 26. 25. Looks good. All right. So I have a consensus score of 25. Correct. Criteria number two. Bring it one moment here. Where's the criteria? 44. That's correct. Okay. All right. Fantastic. I will now go back through the committee scores. I mean, go ahead. I'm going to read, you know, just criteria one, criteria two, and then also go over the SBE bonus points and cost proposal score. And, you know, provide that subtotal for each firm and then committee after I get through the scoring of each, just please say agree after I announce the score. We finished the ranking as well before we go ahead and start this. So starting back with Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., for criteria number one, I had a 47 points. For criteria two, I had 26 points. Do we all agree? Yes. Okay. Now their cost proposal, which was, there was a formula that was used. Please refer to the terms and conditions if you would like to see that. They had received a 7.15 points out of a max score of 20. They did, however, have the SBE bonus points of an extra five. And so that puts their total score at 85.15 and ranks them number two. The second firm we're looking at is Arthur J. Gallagher. Criteria number one was 35 points out of 50. Criteria number two was 22 out of 30. We all in agreement? Yes. Okay. The cost proposal brought them in at 9.38 points and they had five SBE bonus points. This puts their grand total at 71.38 points, which puts them ranked number five. Number three, we have March McLennan Agency. For criteria number one, we had a 32 out of 50. For criteria two, we had a 23 out of 30. We all in agreement? Yes. Okay. The cost proposal was a 16.77 out of 20. They did not, however, have any SBE bonus points. The grand total, in this case, puts them at 71.77 points, which ranks them number four. Now we're going to move to Risk Management Associates, Inc., doing businesses brown and brown public sector. Criteria number one, we had a consensus score of 36 out of 50. And for criteria number two, we had a consensus score of 22 out of 30. We all in agreement? Yes. Okay. They had a cost proposal score of 13.2 out of 20. However, they did have the five SBE bonus points. This puts their grand total being 76.2 points and ranks them third overall. And then, fifth and finally, is the Southeast series of locked-in companies. For criteria number one, they had a score of 44 out of 50. For criteria number two, they had a score of 25 out of 30. We all in agreement? That's it. Okay. Their cost proposal, however, was 20 out of 20. And they did have the SBE bonus points of five, putting their grand total at 94 points and rank number one. For proposals, please monitor YUNA for future updates related to the solicitation. If there's nothing else, that is going to conclude the evaluation committee meeting for RFP 2600369, Insurance Consulting and Brokered Services. With that being said, have a great day. Thanks again. Yeah, we won. Yeah. As soon as I heard that Alliance get number two, I'm like, yeah, we won that fucking thing.