Good morning, committee members and other parties of interest. The Evaluation Committee Meeting for RPS 26-00059 Town and Country Regional Drainage Improvements will be held in part by means of communications media technology. 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. My name is Joe Wright, and I am the senior buyer for this project. 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. Thank you. Hi, good morning, everybody. My name is Mikkel Moberg. I work in the Stormwater Services Section of Hillsborough County, and I am the committee chair for this effort. We can just go around, too. Good morning, everyone. Kyle Goldman. I'm the Floodplain Engineering Manager within the Stormwater Engineering Services Section. Larry Webster, Stormwater Investigation Manager. Good morning, David Glicksburg with Environmental Services. I'm a Technical Advisor to the Evaluation Committee. Good morning. Peter DeGolian, Project Manager with Engineering and Operations. I am a Technical Advisor on this selection process. And we have two more guests from our Procurement Services Department, if they can just introduce themselves. Ashley Ruggiero, Senior Buyer. Civil Talker, Chief Buyer. Thank you, everybody. The committee will evaluate, discuss, and score by consensus the proposals received for this product. Each proposal is to be evaluated based on the information provided in their proposal as it correlates with the requirements and evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation and not any prior experience with the firm. The proposals will be scored based on the following criteria. We have a total max points of 30 for ability of firm and its professional personnel, firms' experience with projects of similar size and type, which is a maximum of 50 points, firms' willingness and ability to meet the schedule and budget requirements with a total of 10 points, each of the firm's recent, current, and projected workload for a maximum of 10 points. We also have three bonus point categories, such as the Small Business Enterprise bonus points, Past Performance bonus points, and Volume of Work bonus points, all have a total max of 5. So this brings our grand total to a maximum of 115 points. The Evaluation Committee Chair, Miguel Moberg, will lead the discussion for the scoring. After each category is discussed, please state the final consensus score agreed upon so that I may record it in the score sheet. After the conclusion of the scoring, I will verify the scores with the committee and provide the ranking of the proposals. So, Miguel, I'll turn it over to you. Yes, good morning. So I guess we're going to dive right in here, and do we just go by each of the criteria then and start with the first criteria? Yeah, you let me know what firm and start with the first criteria, and we'll go down. It's really up to you. All right. Let's start with Atkins Realis, and we're going to start with evaluation criteria number one, ability of firm and its professional personnel. Thank you. So for criteria number one, I thought that Atkins' performance was consistent with a score of 28. A project team personnel has exceptional level of service, and several are uniquely qualified. Project team contains all necessary disciplines. The organization of project team is superior. The prime firm has a superior understanding of the proposed project and will be required to complete it. The prime team has superior professional resources to properly provide services. This proposed project manager is uniquely qualified. And kind of some of the justification to back up that score is Daniel Parsons has been the project manager for Atkins Realis team. And he has worked on and has institutional knowledge of the Town & Country project, having worked on the concept global permitting effort, as well as the ED&E. And has, according to the resume provided, on the submittal applicable experience in these types of projects, as project manager, deputy project manager, would be my score. Kyle, would you pick that up? Yeah, I'll go next. For criteria number one for Atkins, I had the same score. I had a 28. I felt very similarly to, you know, what you used as your justification there. Looking at the criteria scoring categories, you know, I felt that what they submitted fit best in that highest score criteria range of 25 to 30 towards the upper end there at a 28. And I had a, I ranked them at 27 and felt the project team personnel have exceptional level experience, several uniquely qualified project and in the necessary disciplines. My firm has a superior understanding of the project and what would be required to complete it. Awesome. So thanks for kind of giving your justification. So we had two 28s and a 27. So if you guys can kind of come with a consensus score on this one, and I'll go ahead and mark it. Thank you. Makes sense. It's pretty, pretty close right there. So let's, let's, I suggest we do a consensus of 28 based on the provided input from the committee. Agreed. Agreed. All right. Thank you. Yep. 28. So now we'll go to criteria two for Atkins Realis firm's experience with projects of similar size and type. And consistent with this criteria, I scored Atkins a 46. Prime firm has superior past and recent successful experience with projects of similar size and type. Prime firm's approach and methods proposed are superior to provide the level of service required for the project. All of the scope of services provided for the representative projects are similar to the RPS scope. And some additional justification for that, for that score. Projects provided were really consistent with what we're hoping to do here with the town and country regional drainage improvement project. So the example projects were the town and country project development, environment concept design and permitting support, which provides that institutional knowledge of the project. And then some of the larger stormwater projects, lower peninsular stormwater improvements project and upper peninsular peninsula, watershed drainage improvement projects are all larger scale with higher dollar construction costs. And then some of the larger costs, $55 million, $23 million respectively. And then also South Howard flood relief and streetscape project, which is a flood reduction project, flood protection project, construction value of $95 million. These demonstrate that these are representative projects that are of the complexity and the size of town and country. And so that provides a justification for the provided scoring. Yeah, my score for criteria number two for Atkins was 45. I agree with what Mikhail is saying. I think Atkins submitted a great portfolio of regional drainage improvement projects, which is really the focus of what we're trying to accomplish here. So I think, you know, they do deserve to be in our highest category based on what's provided in the evaluation criteria. So I give them a 45. I give them a 42. And it exceeded my expectations. That's middle. And I'm applying firmness, superior, past, present, or past, and recent success, successful experience with projects in a similar size and type. And all of the scope of services provided for representative projects are similar to the RMPs scope. So what was your score, Mikhail? My score was a 46. Kyle's score was a 45. Mine was low. So I definitely can come up to a 45 or 46. It's a very good. We're all in the same range on the criteria. You can split the difference between the two and go 45. Seems reasonable. 45. 45. I agree with that. That's good. All right. So that's a, thank you. So we'll consensus score with 45 then for Atkins Realis. Agreed. Agreed. All right. Moving on to criteria three for Atkins Realis. It's firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. I scored Atkins Realis a 10 on this. Submittal shows superior understanding of an approach to scope, schedule, and budget with potential improvements for project delivery and savings. I also gave a 10. I thought it fit in that 9 to 10 range. I didn't see anything in what they submitted to break it down. So I gave a 10. I gave a 9. It mattered to see my expectations. Submittal showed a superior understanding of an approach to the scope, schedule, budget, potential improvements for the project delivery and cost savings. So you guys said 10. So I'm easily going off to approve it. I am good with a consensus 10. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. All right. We have a consensus 10 for our reading. All right. Moving on to criteria four, which is the effect of firm's recent, current, and projected workload. I scored Atkins a 10 on this. Submittal shows that consultants project for the most adequate staffing available to complete services on schedule. Submittal indicates backup staffing capability in the event of unforeseen circumstances. I scored a 10. As mentioned, demonstrated backup staffing capability and adequate staffing. I scored a 9 at my expectations. As Submittal shows the consultants project team has the ability to deliver the project. Would you like to come up to 10, saying that we... I can come up. It's... Well, they beat the criteria. Yeah. All right. So a consensus score of 10 is going to be awarded. Is that... All right. Is everybody in agreement? I agree. I agree. I agree. All right. So we have a consensus score of 10 for Atkins Real. So that concludes the scoring for Atkins Real. Joe, would you read us back the consensus scores for each of the criteria for Atkins Real? Yes, sir. For the ability of FIRM and its professional personnel, they had a 28. FIRM's experience with projects of similar size and type was a 45. FIRM's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements was a 10 out of 10, as well as the effect of FIRM's recent, current, and projected workload of ATAP. And so that is a... So we're keeping track at home. That's a total score of 93, then. That's correct. All right. I think we'll move on to the next FIRM, which is Burgess and Neiple. At this point, I'll let Kyle start, and then we'll go around that way. And the next FIRM will shift to Larry first. So for the first evaluation criteria for Burgess and Neiple, ability of FIRM and its professional personnel, I gave a score of 20 out of 30. I felt the project team had an above-average level of experience in a project manager, followed by the project team contained all necessary disciplines. The organization of the project team is adequate to the project. The prime firm has superior professional resources and also has an above-average understanding of the proposed project and what will be required to complete it. I think one of the things I noted would have prevented Burgess and Reciple from being a little bit higher was there was limited experience for key team members in terms of past modeling experience with HC-SWIM, which would be the model and the software that would be utilized for a project of this type within Hope River County. You found the switch screen. I don't know. It's just down to the screen. No, I'm just for that. Again, with 25, I met my expectations. Project team personnel have exceptional level of experience. Several are uniquely qualified. Project team contains all necessary disciplines. I scored them an 18. I thought that the project team personnel had an adequate level of experience. Project team contains all necessary disciplines. Organization of the project team is adequate. The prime firm has adequate professional resources to properly provide services. And then just to echo what Kyle had said about what was it on the swim experience contained in the resumes on the resumes of the watershed modeling staff. There's one of that specifically noted. So I give them an 18. So it looks like we've got a little more spread on this one. Looks like I'm a little low and Larry's a little high. Kyle's kind of in the middle. It looks like maybe 21. Seems to be, you guys were both in, I'm looking at the. Three different categories. Yeah, we need to, from three different categories. So in the. I could easily come down into the. What do you, you're at a 25, correct? Oh, yeah, yeah. So. It's just in, just barely into that upper category. So I really don't have a problem coming down to the, you know, one team, whatever. My concern is that you're looking at what we have in 19 through, the 19 through 24 category. Project team personnel have an above average level of experience and the project manager is uniquely qualified. Does that team with the potential questions on swim modeling, does that give them an above average level of experience? That's my concern about putting them into that category. But I mean. I think that's reasonable, a reasonable concern, just to say. Let's bring in, let's bring in the boys here. And how did you guys feel about this? The middle, specifically criteria one. And the staff. Yeah. I thought that the Burgess-Nypel team was well qualified, not as qualified as what Atkins had. And so, you know, if I was looking to score them, I would be in that second to top category. Got it. What did you think, Peter? Yeah, I agree with your comments. I didn't really see anything in here that referenced specifically Hillbrook County's swim modeling. And that is, you know, a key component of the crazy project. So, I probably would have scored in the 23-4 range myself, but that's, you know, that's just my opinion. Okay. Just for clarification, there is a reference to it in Adam Mitchum's resume. So, there is, there is one reference to it. For Hillsborough County, New Berger Road, bridge replacement at Kell Creek. I call that limited. Always are scored, did you? We haven't much wanted. Okay. So, I mean, I think, you know, after discussing it with everybody, I think, you know, 21 is a reasonable, it's a reasonable score, you know, given the input. That's why we have the advisors is, you know, we want to have the best decision we can make and the best score. So, Kyle, are you okay with the consensus score of 21, or do you need the second? No. Yeah, I agree. I think 21 is reasonable for that. I think, I was just referencing back to the resume. I mean, there are, there are staff listed in the organizational chart for watershed modeling, but there are no resumes for some of those staff. So, we're limited to what is available to us. So, I think that 21 is fair. Okay. Consensus score of 21. Agree. Well, go for it, number two. Okay. So, for evaluation criteria number two, firms experience with projects of similar type and size, I gave a 28 out of 50. So, that would be on the upper end of Prime Firm has adequate, successful, and recent experience with projects of similar size and type. The Prime Firm's approach and methods proposed are adequate to provide the level of service requirement project, and some of the scope of services provided for the representative projects are similar to the RPS scope. So, so, I think, I think that's fair. It was, it was adequate. What was submitted, the size of the projects were adequate. The type was adequate. Let me, give me one second here. Yeah. I mean, I think they did have drainage improvement projects, which is, you know, a similar type. They did have some more transportation focused projects as well that, you know, included drainage aspects. And there were some projects that were, you know, a larger size. So, I think adequate is fair in that, that range on the upper end. It's a little high on this one, maybe. But, again, my 41 felt that they're, based on the projects they submitted, and I'll explain that here in just a minute. And the firm had a superior past, present, or recent successful experience, the projects of a similar size and type. The only thing that I couldn't really clear out was the, how much they made on the firm, prime firms, cost was, seemed to be very low for such, you know, the large projects. But their costs, maybe I was misinterpreting something, I don't know. But the amount didn't seem to match the description of the project, the large project, maybe $130,000 or something. Well, I have their, their design fees written here for their second project, World Drive. They had a $250,000 design fee. And then for Lake Harris Regional, there was a $213,000 design fee. And these are rounded, so I apologize. And then for the JN Dane Darling, they had a $1.3,000. That was a water quality project, though. So, yeah, I see what you mean about the design fees being a little low side. Were you guys able to determine who the project manager was for these projects? All those projects? Mm-hmm. So that's something in that criteria that was, they were supposed to list that, unless, unless I missed it. Let me use key personnel on the project. Did it include it? I don't, let me, I'll bring it up here real quick. I don't, don't see who the project manager was. I do see the key personnel. I don't, the project managers for this project's listed. For some of them, I was able to, to find it from resumes. Right. I do list their role on projects. I'm just curious if I missed it on the actual projects. So, that was one of the, that was one of the criteria in the, the request to include project manager on your submittal for your representative projects. Correct? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I guess I'll go. I have them scored as a 21. And some of those reasons are, so when we look at the, the staff that participated in those projects, there's a combined 11 for all the projects. So, relatively speaking, that's a very low number. So, the staff that are included in, the staff that would be working on town country, if they were selected, only 11 have participated in those projects. So, we're not getting the projects that they're providing examples for. It's not staff that's been working on them. And I'm not sure of the, I'm not sure on that. And then, we had discussed a little, Larry had mentioned the design fees. Town country is a, it's a 50, 55 or 49, 48 or $49 million construction budget. I was, right now, when it goes to construction, it might be more. I, you never know what's going to happen. So, we'll just, it's a very expensive project. And the scale of the projects provided, now, Lithia is going to be, it's, the transportation projects are expensive. So, they're similar, but the rest of the projects, there's no flood protection, large-scale flood protection projects represented in that provided portfolio. And that's really what we're looking for. For me to give an above average or an exceptional score, you would want to have projects that are consistent with the project that we're going to be performing. And I just see average here. You know, based on this information, it's consistent with the evaluation criteria. I swear to you, I'm a 21, run from as adequate, successful, recent experience. Not exceptional. You're in the same category. Larry, you were a hump of higher. I'm quite a bit higher. But, like I said, a couple of their fees were very low for a project of any sense. So, it just kind of was listed as their project, and they were the prime, but the amount of their fee was, one thought it said, $44,000, something. It seemed just very low. I don't know that you can get paper printed on for $44,000. It's true of a consultant. So, then the other one was $100,000 and something for a $31,000 larger project. So, just raise some questions. I really don't mind coming down significantly. And then the project manager is a good point of note as well. It's just a detail, but it just contributes. Yeah. It adds to the wondering. So, no, I'll bring my score down. What did you guys have? Yeah. 28 would keep it in that trials category. Yeah. It could go up. For that category, the category is 21 to 30. What was your score? I was a 28. It was 21. 21. Right. It was 41. Well, I definitely don't mind coming down with a 28. But, I mean, if we feel like that's the category we want to be in, we could go up to 30 and still be within that category. If that makes sense. I mean, or I could say a 28. That was my score. No bias. Not bias at all. I think we should go with a score of 28. A consensus score of 28. You guys agree with that? I agree. I agree. I agree. Okay. Criteria number three. firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and requirements. I gave a score of 10 out of 10. I thought a submittal showed a superior understanding of an approach to scope, schedule, and budget with potential improvements for project delivery and cost savings. Similar to the last proposal, I didn't see anything in what was submitted, I didn't see anything in what was submitted where I thought that I should bring them down from the maximum score. So I thought what they submitted was good, so I thought what they submitted was good, and I went with 10 out of 10. I gave them an 8. I thought it meant my expectation. It's going to show a good understanding of an approach to the scope, schedule, budget, budget, budget, and schedule. I gave them a 10 as well. I didn't see anything that would suggest that they wouldn't be anything that's not consistent with a 10. So why didn't come out of 7, it's not much of a difference. Yeah. I recommend a consensus score of 10. Are you guys in agreement with that? Yeah, I agree with that. I agree as well. I'll agree. Thank you. All right. Moving on to the last category, or criteria, rather. Effect of firm's recent current and projected workload. I gave a score of 10 out of 10. I thought this middle showed the consultant's project team had adequate staffing availability to complete the services on the schedule, and they indicated that effective staffing is, they're capable of that in the event of unforeseen circumstances. So I gave a 10 out of 10. I gave an 8. My expectations middle showed the consultant's project team had adequate time and available personnel to complete those services on the schedule. I gave them a 10 out of 10 as well. For the same reasons that Kyle mentioned. I agree with the reasons she has. I mean, reasonable rationale. Type. Type. Yeah, type. Right there. Okay. I recommend a consensus score of 10. I agree, Kyle. I agree. I agree. All right. There it is. All right. Just to go through all of those categories again. The ability of the firm and its professional personnel. We had a consensus score of 21. For a firm's experience with projects of similar size and type, consensus score of 28. A firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements, we had a 10. As well as effect of firm's recent, current, and projected workload, consensus score of 10. That brings us to a grand total of 69. Is that what you had as well? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. I'll give this to Larry now to start off with criteria one for BRMP. Okay. I gave them a 23. It met. It preceded my expectations. A project team personnel have above average level of experience. And if I do managers who need to qualify, project team remains all necessary disputes. I scored them a 25. Yeah. I also scored them a 25. I thought they just got up into that highest category there. Exceptional level of experience. Several are uniquely qualified. Contained all necessary disciplines. Organization superior. Has a superior understanding of the proposed projects and what would be required to complete it. And superior professional resources. And uniquely qualified project manager. Is that 23? I can multiply a 25. I recommend a consensus score of 25. Agreed. Agreed. Okay. The ability of the firm and its professional personnel. Gave them 33. Partially met my expectations. And applying firm's approach and methods proposed. Above average, you provide the level of service required for the project. Most of the scope of services provided for the representative projects are similar to the RPS. I gave them, for criteria 2, a 25. Prime firm has adequate, successful, recent experience with projects of similar size and type. Prime firm's approach and methods proposed are adequate to provide the service provided for the project. For criteria 2 for DRMP, I gave a score of 36. I felt the prime firm had more than adequate, successful, recent experience with projects of similar size and type. Approach and methods proposed were above average. And most of the scope of services were included in the projects. All right. So looking at, just looking through their projects and the scores here, you guys are 36, 33, and I'm 25. You're in the next column up here. Yeah. Where do we, okay, you guys are in that bracket. I'm in this bracket. Let me tell you, adequate versus more than adequate. But, so it looks like they've got, looks like one really large design project. London Waterway? No, that's a medium. The I-7, I-T-75, and I-4 interchange. That's a transportation project. That's one really, that's the one really large project. Their large stormwater project, large quote-unquote, is a construction budget of $8.6 million. That's the Logan Waterway expansion. The rest are relatively small. One's a creek restoration, one's a canal routing. Local or intermediate. Local or intermediate. Yeah. We're really trying to, you know, be consistent with the scale and type of project that town and country is. With that said, I can come up a little bit here. What were you at? 25. Okay. So coming up to, coming up to 30 keeps us in, I mean, you, we can come up to, to get in. You guys are both in the upper, that next grade there. I'd be, I'd feel very comfortable at 31 to, to push in, to be in that bracket because, I mean, what's, what is your justification for more than adequate, recent successful experience of similar size and type? When I see more than adequate, similar size and type, similar size is a $50 million stormwater project, right? And I see a, a big transportation project. It's 17 to, I don't know if that's more than adequate, right? That's just how I'm thinking. Maybe if you can articulate what you're thinking. I mean, I think that's fair. I think they're kind of right on that cusp. Yeah, I agree. They're right on the, right on the cusp, but that's why I have them in a lower tier than you guys. That's only barely into that next tier at 33. Yeah. But, and I agree with what you were saying is that at one really large project, it's a transportation project. Right. It's not even a stormwater. So I'm thinking more of a 30 than a 31 because. I could easily come down to a 30. I could do that. Yeah. All right. So let's do a consensus score of 30. Do you guys agree? I agree. I agree. Pers, willingness, and ability to meet the schedule and budget requirements. Same thing that jumped out at me, but I gave an eight. Matter exceeded exceeds my expectations. Middle shows good understanding of and approach of the scope, schedule, and budget. I give them a 10. I didn't see anything that jumped out at me. It looked like there's some little what's consistent with the criteria for, to achieve a score of 10. I also give a 10. It's pure understanding, an approach to the scope, schedule, and budget, with potential improvements for project delivery and cost savings. I don't like it. It's reasonable. All right. I suggest a consensus score of 10. Agreed. Agreed. Effect of the firm's recent, current, and projected workload. Even eight. Better exceeds my expectations. Middle shows consultant's project team has adequate time. Available personnel, including the services. I scored a 10 on us. And the score is based on the provided materials consistent with the criteria. I also scored a 10. They did indicate that they had the backup staffing capability, so I thought they'd fit with the 10 out of 10, in addition to the other aspects of the criteria. I didn't see anything to bring them down. I recommend a consensus score of 10. Agreed. Agreed. All right. Just to recap, we have, for the ability of a firm and its professional personnel for DRMP, a consensus score of 25. Firms experienced with projects of similar size and type, consensus score of third. A firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements, 10. As well as effect of firm's recent, current, and projected workload. Total score of 10. So, I had a total of 75, so you had it as well. All right. I have that as well. Perfect. All right. We'll move on to Collar Davis. So, for criteria one, I scored them a 19, which is consistent with the project team. Personnel have above average level of experience, and the project manager is in the 12-5. Project team contains all necessary disciplines. Organization of the team is adequate to project. Prime firm has superior professional resources to properly provide services. Prime firm has an above-average understanding of the proposed project and what will be required to complete it. I scored for evaluation criteria number one, the project team has adequate level of experience, contains all necessary disciplines, adequate to the project, has adequate professional resources, and adequate understanding of the proposed project and what will be required to complete it, and the PM's qualifications are adequate. So, in 21, meets or exceeds my expectations. Primary firm has an above-average understanding of the proposed project and what will be required to complete it. Project team contains all necessary disciplines. Organization of the team is adequate to the project. You already have that team? I was. I feel like we're all pretty close there. Right around that swishing and the ranges, so I could definitely come up into that next category. I recommend a consensus score of 19. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Criteria number two. I scored then a 31. Prime firm has more than adequate successful recent experience for projects of similar size and type. Prime firm's approach and methods are proposed are above average to provide the level of service required for the project. And most scope of services for representative projects are similar in the RPS. For criteria two, I gave a score of 24. So, that was adequate, essentially. You know, echoing kind of the same reasoning there, but just adequate instead of more than adequate. I think one thing I had noted was regarding Van Dyke Road, I'll put it up so that I have it available as a reference here. Van Dyke Road. In the proposal, it notes, this is regarding use of SWIM or HC SWIM or the Northwest 5 County WMMP model. It notes that blue is the listed PM has experience updating the Northwest 5 model and SWIM, but then later on in the submittal, it notes in the resumes. In the resumes, so that Van Dyke Road was used for numerous resumes, and it notes in there that the floodplain was modeled in ICPR 4, utilizing boundary conditions extracted from the Northwest 5 regional model and HC SWIM. So, there's kind of a discrepancy there where it says in one part of the submittal, you know, PM has the experience updating the Northwest 5 SWIM model, updating the Northwest 5 SWIM model. But then in the actual more detailed description in the resumes, it notes that they just took the boundary conditions from the HC SWIM model and then used ICPR 4. So, that was one of the things for this criteria when we're listing Van Dyke Road as one of those projects. That was one of those things I noted that doesn't appear to have been something that they actually relied on HC SWIM for, at least for what was submitted in the resume. So, one of the reasons I was slightly lower than you ever. That's definitely a consideration. Thank you, Kyle. It was 21, but partially met my expectations. Prime firms' approach and methods proposed are adequate to provide the level of service required for the project. Some of the scope of services provided for their representative projects are similar to the RPS scope. I think that in looking at the projects, one of these are transportation. There's one stormwater, but it's a relatively local-scale project, and the rest are large transportationists. Yes, I think coming down, I'm recommending a consensus score of 24. Agreed. Agreed? Agreed. Criteria 3, I scored a 10. Submittal shows a superior understanding of and approach to scope, schedule, and budget, potential improvements for project delivery and cost savings. I also scored a 10. Similar justification. You're up, Larry. I'm very low on this one. I gave it a 6. I'm partially met my expectations. Submittal shows adequate schedule and approach understanding of the budget control. Budget schedule could be bad. Is there anything that jumped out at you while you were considered a little lower, or you just thought it was adequate? I just thought it was adequate. I really don't mind coming up. There wasn't anything that jumped out that I could say for sure. Keep it low. I think then a consensus of maybe a 9. Because that still keeps it in the high bracket. But, you know, if it wasn't anything special. And they did indicate the backup staff. The backup staffing. Which is explicitly in the highest bracket. Absolutely. That doesn't prohibit us from going lower if there's something else. But I think 9 is a reasonable suggestion. Thank you. I will recommend a consensus of 9. We have agreement. I agree. Agreed. Agreed. All right. That's all for this one. Right? Joe? Joey there. Yeah. Don't we have the effect of... Yeah, the last one. Effect of the firm. We were to solve the firm's willingness, right? Well, I was talking about criteria 4 in the last one. Yeah. That's what we were doing. Criteria 4. I've got to mix it up. All right. Hold on a minute. I've got to lock in here. So right now I have for the ability of firm and its professional personnel is a 19. What's the consensus score? Whoa, whoa, whoa. Category number 1. Okay. I was just going to go from the top. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Middle. Go ahead. We get all 4. Larry's just on. I was on the wrong one when my last one. The last one I just did. Well, let's... Let me rephrase. Let's revisit. Let's make sure we don't... They want to make sure we're fine. So for criteria number 4, let's make... What are... Kyle and I were agreeing on a consensus score. Well, what was your score? We both had 10. We both had 10. Well, you had 6. Yeah, but mine... That was... Mine was going to... I read the wrong... Well, we've got to go back to 3 then. Let's start at 3. Let's go back to 3. We don't want to disenfranchise anybody. So you have a 6 for 3. Right. Criteria 3. Okay. So let's go back and talk about 3 then. Kyle and I both had 10s for 3. Mm-hmm. And you had a 6. And I said... Okay. So let's... So I recommend a consensus score of 9 for criteria 3. I agree. Do we agree? I agree. Agree. Okay. So we're revising criteria 3 to a consensus score of 9. Now we will go to criteria 4. I scored a 10 for the aforementioned reasons. Kyle also scored a 10. And Larry? I scored a 9. All right. And my expectations, middle shows. So if this scene has... You know, I can be sketchy. That's good. I have the backup staffing. Should we revise that to 10? 10. So I recommend we revised for a consensus score of 10 for criteria 4 for Faller Davis team. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Okay. So from the top, ability of a firm and its professional personnel from Faller Davis and Associates. We had a consensus score of 19. Firm's experience with projects of similar size and type. We had a consensus score of 24. Firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. We had a 9. Effect of firm's recent current projected workload was a 10. So that brings us to a total score of 62. Just making sure you're awake over there. That's why Larry did that. Or maybe I'm not awake. Maybe I'm... Maybe I'm not. Good. I don't have an exception. All right. Moving on to Kimley Thorne's submittal. For the first evaluation criteria, ability of firm and its professional personnel, I scored 25 out of 30. So that corresponds to the highest range within the criteria. That's project team personnel, have an exceptional level of experience with several uniquely qualified and contain all necessary disciplines. Organization of the project team is superior. The prime firm has superior understanding of the proposed project and superior professional resources with a uniquely qualified project manager. I gave them a 24 that meets or exceeds my expectations. Project team personnel and above average level of experience and the project manager is qualified. The project team contains all necessary disciplines. I gave them a 25 as well. And the same reasons that Kyle had mentioned. So pretty tight spread here. I recommend a consensus score of 25. Agreed? Agreed. For criteria number two, firms' experience with projects of similar size and type, I gave a score of 42 out of 50. Again, that corresponds to the highest criteria range. But the project submitted demonstrated superior recent success with projects of a similar size and type. The approach and methods proposed are superior by the level of service we're looking for. And all of the scope of services provided for the representative projects are similar to the RPS scope. I gave them a 41. Feature exceeds my expectations. Prime firm has superior past and recent. Accessible experience with projects of a similar size and type. Prime firm's approach methods proposed are superior to provide the level of service required for the project. I also gave them a 41. Prime firm has more than adequate successful recent experience with projects of similar size and type. Prime firm's approach and methods proposed are above average to provide the level of service required for this project. So what was yours, Kyle? Minus 42. So two 41s and a 42. I recommend a consensus score of 41. Agreed. Agreed. Okay. Criteria number three, firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. I gave a score of 10 out of 10. I thought the submittal showed a superior understanding of and approach to scope schedule and budget with potential improvements for project delivery and cost savings. I gave them a nine. Better exceeding my expectations. The submittal shows a superior understanding of and approach to the scope, scheduling and budget. I gave them a 10 out of 10. I believe that their submittal was consistent with providing criteria for that score. So I recommend a consensus score of 10. Agreed. Agreed. Criteria for effective firm's recent current and projected workload. I gave a score of 10 out of 10. I thought the project team has adequate staffing available to complete the services on schedule. And there was an indication of backup staffing capability. I gave them a nine. I spelled the consultant's project team as adequate staff available for complete services on schedule. Scored them by a 10 out of 10. Their provided response was consistent with the 10 score. Recommend a consensus score of 10 for this. Criteria for. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Go from the top for perform for the ability of firm and its professional personnel. We had a score of 25 for firms experience with projects of similar size and type. We had a 41 firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. We had a 10 as well as the effect of firm's recent current and projected workload of a 10. So I have a total score of an 86. That matches my right up. Larry, I think it's home. Okay. So for Plumber, for Category 1, ability of the firm and its professional personnel. Game of 23, needs or exceeds my motivations. Project team contains all necessary disciplines. Organization of project team is adequate to the project. Criteria up here. So for Criteria 1 for Plumber, I have a score of 12. And that's consistent with some project team personnel of adequate level of qualifications and experience. Project team lacks minor disciplines. Organization of team is marginal. Prime firm's professional resources to properly provide services are marginal. Prime firm has a marginal understanding of the proposed project and what is to be required. Proposed project manager's qualifications are marginal. So let me give a little background into my score, because with that, it's going to be tough to point your score again. It's 12. Really, the score is applicable mainly to the last line here. Proposed project manager's qualifications are marginal. The other stuff that I'm looking at the project manager here, and I have questions. Specifically, though, the score is related to, so it looks like the project manager didn't have a lot of experience provided in the resume. So in the resume, there's 29 years of experience, but only three of the projects in the resume offer any kind of management experience. And in terms of, we're going to need a PM that's going to be able to provide project management skills for a $50 million project. We didn't see any $50 million projects on the resume. So there were 19 projects listed in the project manager's resume as part of the submittal, and only three have any type of management in them. And so that leads to my designation of marginal. And despite the rest of the project team being adequate, the adequacy of the rest of the project team really falls on that sense. And that's why we fall into that criteria. And then there's a relatively low number of key staff members that have participated. Actually, that's the next criteria. I'll jump ahead of myself. Kyle was doing that earlier, but then he kind of brought it back. All right. That was my story. Okay. For criteria one, I gave a score of 18. So I think I'm on the upper end of the range of the criteria that describes adequate level of experience, contains all necessary disciplines, has organization of the project team is adequate to the project, project manager's qualifications are adequate. But I did note some of the things that you had discussed as well with, you know, potentially limited PM experience from the PM. So I gave a score of 18. So we've got, I think we've got a little bit of spread here. Thanks, Larry. It's only a little bit off for me. So, yeah, the project manager's qualifications cannot be, they can't be higher than 19. I'm just looking at the last sentence in each of these. Oh, no, no. I definitely don't mind coming down into that lower category because I had some questions. I don't mind coming up into the next column. That would be fine. But just, that's my rationalization. Adequate. You can't underscore the importance of a project manager on a project of this size. No, that's, yeah. All right. I'm going to suggest a consensus score of 18. I agree. I agree. You're up again. Criteria 2. We better double check. Yeah. So, firms, it's a plumber, firm's experience with projects of a similar size and type. We gave them a 30 out of the 50. A partial leads by vacations. Find firms approach and methods proposed are adequate to provide the rental service required to the project. Some of the scope of services provided for the representative projects are similar. I've scored them a 21. And product firm has adequate, successful, recent experience. Then, similar project and type. Product firms approach and methods proposed are adequate to provide the level of service required for the project. I was in the same range, slightly higher. In that range, I scored a 25 for similar reasons. And I'll give you a little bit of background, so why mine is at the lower end of that echelon is prime firm has adequate, successful, recent, within the past five years. And the majority of the projects provided were not, didn't look like they were performed in the last five years. One of them was. Yeah. That's why, for me, they're at the lower echelon. But with that said, I'm very comfortable with recommending a consensus score of 25. I'm okay with that. Yeah. I agree. All right. Agreed. 25 consensus. Category 3, firm willingness and ability to meet schedule, budget, and the requirements, budget requirements. In the 7, out of the 10, met my expectations. Submittal shows good understanding in approaching the scope, schedule, budget. I scored them on criteria 3A10. So it'll show superior understanding of and approach to scope, schedule, and budget with potential improvement for project failure and cost savings. I also scored a 10. There's a little bit of spread there. I have no problem. They did include the backup for, you know, if they need an additional staff to provide. We're on criteria 3. Correct. Don't miss it. Don't miss it. Yeah. So we have a 7, a 10, and a 10. That's why you come home. So let's say a 9 would be reasonable because that keeps us in that upper echelon for a cryo. All right. That's for you. I recommend a consensus score of 9. Agreed. Agreed. All right. Now we'll get to criteria 4. Criteria 4. Well, we're effective. I'm making sure. Check out myself. Double-checking myself now. Effective, the firm's recent, current, and project work load. We gave them an 8 out of the 10. It meets my expectations. The submittal shows all, shows that the consultants probably didn't give them as adequate time. Available staff to complete the services on this table. They gave them a 10 out of 10. They're almost consistent with a score of 10 on the criteria issue. Yeah. They gave them a 10 out of 10 as well. I think they showed they had adequate staff and the backup staff capability. All right. I recommend a 10. Compile a consensus score of 10. Agreed. Agreed with that. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Let's go from the top. The ability of the firm and its professional personnel. Plumber Associates was an 18 consensus score. Criteria 2 for plumber. Firms experienced with projects of similar size and type. Success score of a firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements was a 9. And effect of firm's recent, current, and projected workload. Consensus score of 10, which brought a total of 62 points. Plumber Associates. That would be good. So, okay. That matches. Yes. All right. So, as stated in the solicitation document, the county may require oral presentations, but no fewer than three shortlisted firms. Committee members. I'm sorry. What's going on? Can you do bonus points? Oh, yeah. I can go. I haven't yet. You need to do that. Thank you. Okay. So, going back to Atkins Realis, we had 103 points in total. So, that was including the SBE bonus points of five, as well as past performance points of five. But they had zero volume of work bonus points. And we went to Burgess and NYPL. They had a total score, including the bonus points, of 77. So, that was five for the SBE bonus points, three of past performance bonus points, and a zero for volume of work. Then we went over to DRMP. They had a total score of 84. So, that was five for the SBE bonus points, four for past performance score, and zero for volume of work. And I believe we went with… Faller Davis. Faller Davis. Yep. So, they had a total score of 66. So, they had zero for the SBE bonus points. They had four for the past performance. And a zero for volume of work. And then, Kimley and Horn. We had a five for SBE bonus points, a two for past performance bonus points, and zero for volume of work, which brought Kimley and Horn to a 93. Plumber and Associates was a five for SBE bonus points, four for past performance, and zero of volume of work. So, that brought their grand total to 71. So, our number one ranked firm was Atkins Realis with 103 total points, and our second lowest was 93, which was Kimley-Horn, followed by DRMP at 84. So, now I'd like to recommend, if you guys would want to move forward with oral presentations. Oral presentations, or if you wanted to move forward with the recommending award here in Wheaton. I think they would move ahead with Alex for all this presentation. I think that's reasonable. I think we should make a consensus decision. A consensus for no presentation. No presentation. No presentation. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. All right. So, please be advised that the cone of silence is still in effect until the notice of intent to recommend award. Five-day protest period ends. So, all questions will still be directed to me, the senior buyer, for this project. So, I wanted to thank everybody for joining in today. I believe that's not all we have to discuss. And, yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. Gordon.