And other parties of interest, the Evaluation Committee meeting for RPS 2600137, Miscellaneous Architecture Engineering Services, will be held in part of the meeting's communication 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 the meeting. My name is Joe Wright, and I'm the senior buyer for the 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. Good afternoon, everyone. Amy Jarman, Capital Programs. I'm the committee chair. Good afternoon. I'm Hannah Tidrington. I'm with Public Works, Contracts Management. I'm a business analyst. Good afternoon. I'm Phillip Hunt, Capital Programs. Thank you, everybody. The committee will evaluate, discuss, and score by consensus the proposals received for this project. Each proposal is to be evaluated based on the information provided in their proposal, as it correlates to the requirements and evaluation criteria set forth by the solicitation, and not any prior experience with the firm. So the proposals will be based on these criterias, which I'll refer to as criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4. Criteria 1 is the ability of its firm and its professional personnel, which has a total points of 34. And then we have our firm's experience with projects of similar size and type, which is criteria 2, which has a total points of 36. A firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements is criteria number 3 and has a total points of 15. And criteria number 4 is effect of firm's recent, current, and projected workload, with a total points of 15. And then I'll also discuss the bonus points, past performance, and volume of work once the group has made their consensus. Okay. The Evaluation Committee Chair, Amy Jarman, will lead the discussion for the scoring. After each category is discussed, please state the final consensus score agreed upon, so I may record it on the score sheet. After the conclusion of the scoring, I'll verify the scores with you all to provide, you know, clarity there. So, with all that being said, Amy, I'm going to turn it over to you for the very first firm, which is ASDSKY. Okay. Thank you very much. I do want to just go through a couple of points of what the scope was in the initial call. So, the range of services included, basically A&E services or special services pertaining but not limited to architectural, civil, landscaping, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical elements of the projects, including any specialty subconsultants. Also, to be included, our project management and planning services, keep that in mind as we go through here. Thank you. Our first firm that we will go through will be ASDSKY. And we'll start with the first evaluation criteria one. And again, we'll start in building discussion of our evaluations. So, with this firm, we'll start with the first one. One thing to note is, the team experience, I felt like it had a great experience. John Curran was the BI vice president. He had similar projects and larger projects. Alex Atwood, architect. He's also a project architect. We have Rayanne Boyle and Dan Clark as a mature design. Eric Randall as graphics and signage. The landscape, the landscape, and what I saw is they had all the disciplines that would be required. They had for architecture, obviously, ASDSKY, Civil, Vickstrom, MEP, Voltaire, Structural, MCE. They appeared that they had a good understanding of the project approach. They talked about they have 200 employees, 23 staff members in Tampa. And let's see what else. The PM qualifications for John, he is an architect with experiments in municipal projects for this firm. So, the PM had some specialty experience. Based on that, within the category of 34, I had given them a 30 in that category. So, we'll just go around and you can add or anything else you've seen and we'll go through that. So, I also need them a 30 and I noticed that they have a good team. I like that you noted that they have all disciplines. But I did say, you know, with a similar experience, similar project experience, they have them a 30 as well. I was just a little bit higher than a 32. It's a big plus on them. I put a strong investable continuing services and civic portfolio. I would agree with that. Are we in the consensus of a 31? 31. 31 sounds great there. 31 consensus. Okay. Okay. The next one is the firm's experience with projects of similar size and type, next category and evaluation. So, on that one, we requested for 10 projects with similar size and type. They did have at least a couple continuing service contracts listed, St. Pete and Plant City. They did have municipal building project types. Now, on this one, only 6 of 10 I found to be completed, which usually do look for completed projects. So, that's an item of note. They did have many awards that they listed. Their services did appear to be similar to the RPS with the continuing services, the full design service team. They had urban design, master planning. I did have a little bit of trouble, I think, on each project, what team members were involved in the project. So, I couldn't tell if the team they presented had experience in these projects. So, that was a little bit of disadvantage that I saw with them. Based on that, I had given them a 31. So, I've also given them a 31. I did see that they had a contract that was very similar in logistical requirements and expectations. So, thank you, thank you, and I'm sure you might as well. Right there, you guys, I had a 32. I kind of noted that some projects were designed for the operational facility focus. So, very similar to what you guys had. We had a consensus of 31. 31. 31 consensus. The next category is a firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. So, on this one, I was really looking for more than they presented in this category. So, it talked about the project approach, but it did not talk about schedule or budget within their description here at all. But it did talk a little bit about approach. So, I ended up getting them a 2. I gave it differently, I gave them a 12, just because of their previous experience, especially with other municipalities. I gave them a 12, and what you said, is in order to do a less detailed form of schedule, growth methods done out of the larger firms. Let's talk about that. So, this section, let's look at what did we have to do on evaluating to give a better understanding of this category number three. So, the breakdown is for 12 to 15, the middle shows superior understanding of an approach to scope, schedule, and budget. 9 to 11, the middle shows a good understanding of approach to scope, schedule, and budget. Project budget and schedule can be met. 6 to 8, submittal shows adequate schedule approach, understanding of budget control, and understanding of scope. Project budget and schedule can be met or modified to meet project intent. And then 3 to 5, submittal shows an adequate understanding of scope, budget, schedule, and budget requirements. And 0 to 2, submittal does not address either the schedule or budget. So, if there's a pull up, this section, it talks about project approach. And I did not even find the word schedule or budget on that page. So, that's where I'm missing their schedule or budget. So, hearing it again, hearing how many times budget and schedule is used, and thinking back and remembering that schedule and budget did not come up. I would, I would be very willing to amend my support drastically. So, I think, you know, understand they do have a project approach, which was, I mean, the scope was talked about in the category there, but the schedule and budget was not. It talks about, can it be, the project schedule can be accelerated? There's, there's a lot of project oversight. Yeah, there was something much about that. So, how about these classes, when you get on that, if you look at someone in the 6 to 8, because they don't really talk about budget control and understand the scope? Well, the consultant process is what I kind of do, so it's not like what you're saying, the schedule. Yeah. It's more kind of other things, but, you know, it's 6 to 8, I mean, I'd say 7. So, is this consensus score? 7. It's 7. The last one was the effective firm's recent current and projected workload. So, on this one, they did appear that they had adequate staffing, with the 200 staff with ASD, they had a core team of 10 to 15% of the availability. They did utilize subconsultants but they didn't provide the subconsultant resources in their breakdown. So based on that I've given them a 12. I've also given them a 12. I did note that they had available resources to seem like to perform the work that we were asking of them on Episcope. Yeah, I had a 13, but I just put it on here, active high-profile workload is required and careful resource allocations. So I'm totally okay with that. Okay. All right. So that concludes the eval scores. We also have the SBE bonus points. And in this case, they had a 5 out of 5, past performance score of a 3, and a volume of work of 5 points. That puts their total amount of points of 94. And just to go over those consensus scores again, Criteria 1 was 31. Correct. Criteria 2 was 31. Correct. Criteria 3 was 7. Correct. Criteria 4 was 12. Correct. All right. Perfect. All right. Valuation criteria. Under one, ability of firmness, personal, professional, personnel. So this one, it has a long time establishment since 1993. It does have three Florida locations, Nashville, then Nashville, Boston, Chicago. It does have a large group of 160 professionals. Team members did have experience with continuing contact tracks, it indicated. It did indicate local experience with Hillsborough County and the city of Tampa. The main point of contact was a registered architect with 25 years experience. We did have a landscape architect in house and interior designer in house. Did have a quality control in house. All the disciplines appear to be listed. Geotech. Civil. With Campo. Structural. MCE. MEP. The only thing I saw that could be a question is the MVP experience. Didn't have a lot of experience in Hillsborough County or city of Tampa, but it was in Orlando 12. That was the only comment that I had with that. So based on that, I gave them the Trinity. I gave them a 31, knowing their diverse staff and their work in the local area. I gave them a 31 as well. I just kind of noted on here that it did seem to emphasize the private sector development along in the county's development. So it's, you know. In the local experience. Yeah. So 31, I mean, I'm willing to come down on that a little bit. Thank you. Okay. How about a 29 or 30? 20 mornings. 20 mornings. 20. That's absolutely a good consensus. Yeah. Concentress based on some of that experience. Not being in this skill. Other firms experienced with projects of similar size and type. So on that one, they did have continuing contracts for similar municipal project types, project types, the full service design team, renovations, new buildings, programming, HVAC replacement, parking lot improvements. I thought that looked like they had about five continuing projects. So based on that, with that, I think they're going to be 33. I think 10 and 30, noting their continuing services contracts. 30 as well. I don't know if you were directly comparable, but they did, yeah, some of their breakdown wasn't. Yeah. Facilities, education, projects, multiple buildings. Yeah. A consensus of 32, or I believe I'm going to get 31. So the next category is the firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. So based on that, they're estimating, they referenced estimating per phase. They had historic cost data referenced, creating projects on time history. They indicated they had a good history that there was a local team with faster response time. And let me just go to that one more time. So they did address both budget and schedule and approach and that. So based on that, I gave them a 9. Okay. Just based on that. To show the ability to manage assignments, additional schedule performance metrics, I would have to be strengthened. So I could have been alive at 13. So I'm willing to. Okay. I'm willing to go down a little bit. Yeah. I didn't see where they talked about accelerating projects and accelerating the schedule. So that's why it was not at the 13. So based on the conversation, you know, 12. 12. 12. Yeah. The last category for this is the current and projected workload. So this one, we have adequate staffing that looked like 10 to 70% of their time was committed. And then the Johnny Dagger, the project director was 20%. And then Virginia, the project manager was 50% committed. And they did indicate the, again, they have 160 professionals, 30 employees in Tampa. So based on that, I gave them a 14. I think from a 12, based on their availability, their history and in delivering under, you know, multiple projects under a service contract and their ability to track those milestones, their internal processes, tracking those milestones. That's true. It was a 13. Now this noted, uh, significant active private sector workload required care allocation during big periods. I don't know. So yeah, I think the 13. It was a 13 consensus. 13 is against it. It was a consensus. 13. 13. Okay. Um, for criteria number one, uh, Baker Barrios architects got 29. Criteria two was 32. Criteria three. Was it 12? Criteria four. Was it 13? Yes. Perfect. Now if they're SBE bonus points, uh, they got five points. Past performance, three points. Volume of work, five points. This puts Baker Barrios, uh, with a total points of 99. And now we can move to Collier's engineering and design. Yeah. Do you want to leave this one? Um, certainly. I'll be happy to leave this one. Um, so, uh, Collier's engineering and design, uh, for, uh, categorizing one, the ability of the firm and its professional personnel. Um, I think that they had, um, staff that met, followed the requirements toward the city. Um, it looked like they had a good amount of stuff. I don't have the same notes that you do and all the different staff, but, um, I gave them a 27. A 27. Bill? I gave them a 30. I just wanted, uh, the architectural, civil, structural, and survey. Uh, there was a little more engineering focused than architecture. So, what I saw was, um, maybe it was too civil focused for their experience. Um, and most of the experience was in Miami. Um, and it was in the Tampa office. And then the organization was an engineer. The whole thing was not an engineer, not an architect. So I found that a bit concerning. Um, they weren't located in Tampa. Um, Ross experience in engineering, which is great, but just probably not the best fit for this project. That's what I was looking for. Um, the team qualifications, he was an architect, um, and did have some good experience. So I took that in consideration, but no Hillsborough experience or city of Tampa experience that I could see. So, um, what I looked at was actually at 15. So there's a big difference there because of the civil component of that. So I think that's a great observation, um, and something that's looking as well. Yeah. I mean, the one, the only reason I came up Thursday was they didn't have the one that had architectural experience, but like you said, no Hillsborough County experience. So yeah. I don't know. Okay. So how about, um, if we look at one D two, what does that look like? Um, so for the next category, we've got the firm's experience with projects of similar size and type. Um, they do have some experience with projects in, in similar, um, size and type. Yeah. None in, um, in Hillsborough, unfortunately, which was, uh, a drag down for me. Um, I gave them a one. Oh, good. Yeah. Kind of like you, the Hillsborough County experience, uh, was a big factor in that support. I was missing with some components. So, um, for the experience, for the product type, like continuing service contracts, they didn't have a lot that were similar to that. Um, three of those projects were transportation, um, small renos. Um, and then only one of the projects I saw, it had very little experience with the PM, um, listed for those. So that's where the concern was mine too, within that meeting. So I had actually given them a 16. Okay. So based on that, um, which is 16, I don't believe. So the 14 through 20 is, um, project team personnel have adequate level experience. Project team contains all the necessary disciplines. Uh, the 14 through 21. Project team has adequate successful business within past five years experience with projects of similar size and type. Trying 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 representative projects are similar to RPS scope. And that's the category I found that they were in within that one. Um, and I thought they were in the middle part of that's part of the sales team. Okay. That's really there. Um, would we think the consensus of 17 or? Yeah. I think 17. I feel like that's really, um, fair score. Consensus of 17. Yeah. Uh, the next one is, um, go ahead. No, it's the willingness and ability to make the schedule and budget requirements. Um, for this category, um, I put, I gave a 10 out of 15. Um, I did put that they, um, do make a priority to meet all of our requirements with efficiency. Uh, they did mention on schedule and budget. That's it. Okay. Thank you. Well, and just noted on here, uh, strong technical capacity, but architectural delivery, it's less detailed than some other firms. Um, they did have some good, um, components of the QAQC program, um, in the schedule to use ProCore, um, some other tools, um, budget. They talk about efficient design solutions, um, has a hit team, they call it, I don't know, to like come in as a rescue scenario. We like this. Um, so I had given them, um, I had given them an eight, um, because they didn't really talk about, um, improvements necessarily on there, but within the categories and discussion, they sort of comply with them there. So I can see your point on that. Um, so based on that, would we, um, welcome to a consensus of 10 for our discussion? I think 10. 10 is a consensus. Yeah, I think that's a great consensus number. The last one. I'm sorry. Effect of the firm's, uh, recent and current, recent, current, and projected workload. Um, for this one, again, we didn't have, um, Hillsborough County experience, um, but it does mention that they do track their capacity and available resources, um, to ensure that they deliver on time. So I did feel like they had a, um, commitment. Oh, I'm sorry. I think it's 11. For, um, substantial staff, staffing depth, regional resources, active statewide workloads, smaller Tampa, architectural staffing only required. And it was kind of, it was a knock on that a little bit. So I don't like getting into it. Um, I did see that they have a lot of years of experience, um, about a 50% medium available staff time that would be on about 50% available. Um, and then they have some tools in there, so I've given them 11. Are you concerned? Is that 11? 11? 11. All right. Um, just to go over those criterias once again. Um, criteria one was a consensus score of 22, criteria two was a consensus score of 17, criteria three was a 10, and criteria four was a 11. Correct. Okay. And for the SPD bonus points, they have zero. Past performance was a three. And volume of work was a five. So that brings their total score to 68. That's my CTH. That's right. Yeah. So CTH consulting, uh, criteria one, ability of the firm, professional, personnel. I put, uh, they demonstrated strong with, uh, disciplinary resources, public sector experience, broad architectural and engineering capabilities, significant depth. You know, they do a wide range of county assignments. So I gave them a 32. And what I saw was they had, um, county experience similar to the contract, have experienced time period of lived around 45 years. Um, it was a Tampa based office. Um, it did have quite a few professionals with many offices around the U.S. Um, it was familiar with local permitting, um, architect of record, and then, um, has county experience with the meaner, um, did have the organization. Um, and based on, we really liked giving them much more to nine. Um, I put that they had, um, public sector experience. Um, and then I have, I put that they had, uh, continuing service contract experience. Um, and, uh, professionals across all disciplines or many disciplines. Um, so I gave them a 33. Based on that, um, there's a consensus of 32, if appropriate. Um, 32, if that's what they're created to. 32 is a consensus. Bacteria 2, experience with similar projects. I gave them a 33 on this. I just, uh, I think they had a strong experience in the public sector, municipal, uh, facility-related projects. And, like, did, uh, experience across multiple facility types. Um, and, like, strong middle area with, uh, multi-disciplinary projects. So, 32 out of there to see. This one, um, it looked like the, one of the negative things I saw there were some of the projects were not completed. Um, they had some ongoing projects still. Um, but a lot of them had both, um, John and Veronica on it, which were the team members, um, seven out of ten. Um, but the municipal projects, um, they did have some county experience, um, and they were similar to scope. So, so based on that, we did a 29. Um, I gave them a 34, um, based on their, um, Hillsborough County experience, um, and their, uh, team that's specifically structured for these community services contracts. Okay. Um, it looks like, you know, the consensus of 32. The president. 32 was appropriate. Okay. Consensus 32. Yep. Criteria three, uh, schedule budget requirements. I gave them a, uh, 14 out of 15 on this. I spoke to demonstrate strong budget management. Schedule control budget management. Password delivery capability. Sounds pretty high on this, uh, criteria. What I had is the, um, QAQC program they did have. They had, um, a PM with experience in public sector. They provided updates. Um, one thing I didn't get most of you guys thought was how they did accelerate the schedule and, um, make those improvements. In general, they talk about it. Like they have a good understanding of how it flows, but I was looking more of what are some tools that they can use for accelerating the schedule, which is part of that. So based on that, I'm giving them a seven. Okay. Um, I gave them a 14, um, just due to their, you know, structured and integrated, uh, processes that, you know, helped us deliver projects on time. That makes sense. Let's see the categories for that. 12 to 15 is the middle shows superior understanding of an approach of scope, schedule, and budget with potential improvements for project delivery and cost savings. And then 9 to 11 is the middle shows good understanding of an approach to scope, schedule, budget, project, schedule for being in that. So did they show improvements for project delivery and scope and cost savings? Like you, it was a little bit vague. I mean, they talk about schedule control, but there wasn't a whole lot of a detail into how, how to do that process. Yeah. So what if we look at, uh, which is on the high end of the signal. Can I go there? Oh yeah. Okay. 11 since that's it. Tier four current projected workloads. I actually gave them a 13. I just know they've had a substantial staffing organizational capacity to support, uh, Hillsborough County. Seem to be a larger organization. Organization, smaller workload may be required during parts of, uh, high workload. So 13 and 15. 13. Okay. Um, this one, um, it did look like they had 2060, 65 and 75% available workload. Um, I mean, reference like the dollar amount available from that. Um, it didn't show. It gave the projection for current, but not. It went through April of 2027, but didn't continue on. So I did that too. Um, and then it looked like John Lent. He had a lot of active projects. So I did take that consideration of might impact. Um, they were close. So based on that, I give them a seven, but. Okay. Um, I gave them 12. Um, just to be saying, you know, I don't think they have the capacity and the resources to deliver immediate and responsible service without impacting your current projects. Okay. So here in your discussion, um, it looks like, and I can actually, the 12 to 15, this middle shows the consultants project team is adequate staffing available to complete services on schedule. So that all indicates backing staff and capability and the benefit for some circumstances. And that's what you're referencing. the larger group within there. So is it 12 for the consensus board? What you said, it may, that still may be a little high, like I said, 13. I had noted on there too, they may prioritize larger assignments. Right. So, uh, to come from that school or something. Yeah. Consideration. Yeah. So I run by those numbers for CPH, uh, consulting, uh, criteria one was a 32 criteria. Two was a 32 criteria. Three was an 11 criteria. Four was 11. Correct. And then their SB bonus points was zero. Their past performance was sort of one and their volume of work was a five. And that gives them a grand total of 92 points. So now we're able to go on to, uh, CSA central. I mean, sorry. Next one. So this one, um, the, they mentioned they have a full service team. Um, they did have all of the disciplines needed. They talked about community outreach was available as a specialty. Um, serving was in house at CSA, which I thought was interesting. Um, they had 30 years of experience in Florida. They had a large employee nationally, which was sort of a backup. Um, they did some internal cost estimating, which I thought was interesting. Um, but most of the experience was in Miami. Um, which, um, location isn't part of the criteria base for the, for the school. Okay. All right. Um, but the experience within permitting isn't really a location. Um, it's where it's, if it's local permitting, it affects the outcome of the project. So that should be something that you can take into consideration, don't you think? With experience? With the experience with floor permits? With not floor, local permitting. Because otherwise we don't know the permitting process. It would expose everything down. I hear where you're coming from. Um, just given that scoring right there. It's not their location. It's their experience. So the location of the firm really isn't consideration. It's a total different process. It's just a permitting. Existence location. With permitting. Okay. It's really based on their experience and the projects that they have. Um, so it's not that their firm location is impacting the service. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Um, their organization of the team, the lead principal was an engineer. Um, so just keep that in mind. Um, and then the PM was an architect, um, was a big amount of experience. So that was a consideration too. Based on that, am I giving them a 15? I gave them a 29, um, based on their, uh, in-house staff, the architect, their experience. I just kind of noted what you have to say, but, um, it did seem more infrastructure focused than traditional architectural. So that was the big knock on it. Mm-hmm. But I'm doing 28 time going to negotiate. Well, since the main person, um, was an engineer, the principal in charge, who was the concern that I had. It was, um, not that that's bad necessarily good for the type of projects and what the scope was for the fall. Right. It doesn't really match the main task, even though they do have a project manager, which is a registered architect. That's all the reason that really gave them 28 was based on that. And then the deputy project manager was a registered architect and was a VC. So it's somewhat interesting, but it's not really appropriate to put a new template. So that's why it was on the 15. Okay. But I think I hear what you're both saying. In rereading the 14 to the 20 board, it says, uh, project team personnel, adequate level of experience. Project team contains all necessary disciplines. Organization of project team is adequate to the project. Prime firm has adequate professional resources to properly provide service. Prime firm has adequate understanding of proposed project and what will be required to complete it and proposed project manager's qualifications are. So that's the 14 to 20. Okay. Um, the 21 to 27 is, uh, project team personnel have above average level of experience and the project manager is uniquely qualified. Project team contains all necessary disciplines. Organization of project team is adequate to the project. Prime firm has a superior professional resources to provide, uh, to properly provide services. Prime firm has above average understanding of the proposed project and what will be required to complete it. Proposed project manager qualities, qualifications are above average. Now mine was higher than this category and willing to come down. Um, I would love to land, I think just because that's the, um, unique community outreach and general testing survey stuff. I would want to, um, move on to that in a score somewhere in the 21 to 27 range. I, I think, but yeah. First they will. But they do have a lot of the, um, years of experience, at least the prime does, so that's good. Okay. So would we look at the 23 or 24 range? Okay. 23. Okay. Great. Yes. Category is our firm's experience for projects of a similar size and type. So in this one, they did have, um, what it looked like if they had similar projects of size and type, but not continuing contracts, the thing that was missing. And then three of them were civil or transportation projects. Um, so that's working out there. So based on what I gave them a 15, I gave them a 27. Okay. So that they have the expertise and capacity to provide services for the work that they experienced necessary to do in moving. I gave them a 26 and just, you know, they did kind of emphasize infrastructure, utility, disaster recovery, fire, libraries, fire stations, county facilities. I mean, 26. So we're looking for projects of similar size and type. So let's just look at them. So they had the general center of parks and development, and that was really civil scope. If you look at it, so it was sewer connection and transmission system. And the next one was the yellow key center. Um, that again, was, uh, so I think it would be center. That's the key center at the college. I mean, this one, they collaborated with, um, K2M on there. So they were sitting on that one. Um, the next one is a seminal Indian reservation gymnasium. Um, that one, um, that one's still in the process. It looks like it says project is planning on schedule and reservation to the end of the year. Um, the next one is, um, retrofitting at fire station 20. Um, that one comment there. It's complete. That's the court. I think it was. I don't know if that was for the utility or actually it was the particle. That's the fire station. The reservation for college and the court court. It was central park site. Um, Everglades city community center envisioning concept plans. So it's a concept plan. There'll be a job as part of a lot of renovations. Um, the transportation still for city of Deerfield beach, mobility improvements and the Cedar Key Museum, um, historic reservation, which that was somewhere in Stoke and Tape. And then, um, Cypress reservation, steady green innovation. Um, so, so, so we've got one more transportation, um, similar. That's, um, why it was on the lower side with this, just because we don't have transportation projects that we've gone under this contract. Um, but I see that as our higher side. So looking at that same category of 22 to 29, um, where most, let's see, more than adequate experience projects, um, more than adequate, successful recent experience with projects of a similar size and type. Um, could we look at the lower side of that? Because it's really not architectural and something not complete. You're at what? I was at 15, which is really the other category. But what if we looked at like a 22 or 23? It would be the 20 as it was. Yeah. That would be really good to meet you in your category. Okay. That one is adequate, successful recent experience. Um, so how about a 20? This next category is the firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. So on this one, they did have a QAC program. They talked about a couple of other programs such as Procore, Equip Base, Vantage Point tools they use. Um, they did have a description and budget. And so that was related to scheduled budget, efficient design solutions. And then we had, um, internal, they had set internal goals for themselves that they would make it as good. Um, so based on that, I've given them a, um, I could have messed up in school units. Uh, to meet schedule and budget schedule and budget. I've given them at 12. Okay. Okay. For about 12, um, that's noted on here, construction, experience, supports, confidence, uh, demand, schedule, and budgets. And like you said, they had a lot of QA, QC procedures. I thought that was okay. They did have a lot of tools, which was still behind that. Yeah. Arrogatory coordination, auto discipline, project controls. And they do talk about how accelerated schedules. So based on that, I could go with the 12. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And then that is effective funds, recent, current, and projected workload. So that one, um, we had good experience. Um, they had, um, about 50% of projected availability. Let's see if that's, uh, yeah, available time at 50%. And they also included all of their subs, which was good. So, and they did a current workload and available. So it ranged from 40% to 60% of current workload and availability of 40% to 60%, depending on who it is. And the project manager was about 80%. So based on how they gave them that to them. I gave them an 11. Okay. They did their, um, subject matter experts in their, uh, local relationships with SBAs to help them accelerate projects. That's it. I gave my 12. I'm just gonna notice on here that, uh, could be considered for smaller projects. Uh-huh. But I gave my 12. Okay. So I'm, I'm fine with 11. 11 sounds like a consensus. Yeah. All right. To go through the consensus scores for CSA Central Inc. Uh, criteria one was a 23. Criteria two was a 20. Criteria three was a 12. Criteria four was an 11. Okay. Now they have five SBE bonus points, three past performance, and a five for volume of work, which brings their grand total to 79 points. And then now the next term is going to be Foley Bryant architecture. For Foley Bryant architecture, uh, for Criteria one, I gave them a 27. Um, I noted that they had, um, a demonstrating ability, um, to meet the capacity. And then they had sustainability to it, which is that they had a, uh, diverse group of staff out here. Okay. Thanks. I gave them a 29. I just know they're on here. They had a lot of experience, meditation, assessments, uh, planning, construction, administration. The knock on them I put on here was just internal staffing. They were smaller than a lot of the other firms. Good point. Um, yeah, I saw that they have a lot of licensed architect staff around 28. Um, they had higher ed, um, a lot of higher ed experience, um, and other project types. The project manager was an architect. It did look like they had all the disciplines. They have a pretty good understanding the project. So they had other continuing service contracts and against maybe it's the immediate firm. It's a little bit smaller, um, with not a lot of backup, but, but the PM had managed other continuing service contracts such as Manatee and New College. And based on that, I have given the name 27. The CEO consensus city of 27, 27, 27, 28 consensus. So for criteria number two, um, I have, uh, 31 for the score here. Um, I said that they had experience with projects of similar size and scope. Um, and they had previous community services contracts. I gave them a 31 as well. Just to know it on here for, you know, service contracts with libraries, fire station, traditional equipment. Cause I think facilities. So I gave them a 30. I did see that they have a lot of good experience. But what I found was that, um, like five out of the 10 that I enlisted were completed projects. Some of them were in process. And then only three out of 10 of the projects that Pam was on the team are, you know, specific involvement with those that they enlisted. Um, but they did have a good range of project types. Project types open there, which were very municipal and very different. So based on that, I didn't get into a 25. So that's a good category. It's fewer, large scale projects too. I kind of know the only. Yeah. The problem that they didn't have some of them are completed was really, I mean, I was concerned about, um, you know, that second category because of that, the 22 to 29, that higher the 20. Right. Yeah. I'm sorry. So criteria number three, the first willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. Um, I gave them a 12. Um, I, uh, they noted they had a record of proving that delivering projects on budget and within schedule. It's like they do some proactive coordination and lots of communication, which we like. So I gave them a 12. Okay. I gave them a 13. Just noted, uh, strong responsibilities, communication, schedule management, consultant, coordination, uh, showed, uh, project leadership, experience, delivering service work orders. So I, I did it my third thing. Okay. So with this, um, they talked about a lot of tools, um, but they didn't give specific examples. I was sort of looking for that, but, um, they did use them, um, QAQC. They, they had some contingency planning on there, but I'm giving them a 10. But hearing what you both said with your points, it looks like we're probably in the upper category. Um, I'm glad to do that. So I'm going to leave 12. Makes sense. That's, um, showing a superior understanding, um, of an approach to scope and schedule and budget within potential, with potential improvements for project delivery and cost savings. So 12, 12 consensus. And then for the effect of the firm's recent current and projected workload, I gave them an 11, noting that, um, it appeared that they had availability, um, to address capacity and, um, sustain that. I gave them 11 as well. I'm just devoted on here. I have smaller internal staffing. They present challenges if, uh, large assignments were given to them. So I gave them all up. Yeah. With that, it looks like, um, based on that. So they had 36 availability, um, but by 27, it looked like they were showing 100% availability, which probably, you know, it really happens. But, um, they did have four licensed architects and the staff at 19, but they didn't have the sub professionals on here, which was a little bit concerning to me. I was consulting. Yeah. You just really list what they are. There will be loads and they don't have your subs available. There could be an issue. So based on that, I give me an 8. But looking at that, how about the, between the line and 11, but on the lower line, because of the, we don't really have all the information. Yeah. Yeah. I like that. Sounds fair. For Folly Bryant architecture to run through the numbers once more. Uh, criteria one was a 28. Criteria two was a 29. Criteria three was a 12. Criteria four was a nine. Okay. Okay. Uh, for the asking bonus points, uh, was a zero. Uh, past performance score of a three. Volume of work was a five. That brings their grand total to 86 points. Now that was six out of the 13th firm. So about halfway through, if you guys want to take a break or keep going, whatever you get there for. I'm fine. Let's do one more and take your back. Okay. Welcome back. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Criteria number one, ability, firm, professional personnel. I gave them a 32 out of 34, just noted on here, cerebral engineering. This ones are, so it's forwarded with strong local presence, continuing services, and UAQC procedures. Of course, uh, extensive public sector and experience and a lot of them. It's more accounting. So I gave them 32. Okay. This one may be listed on the reference, um, as the, based on the information of the reference that they have, um, for the continuing service contracts. Um, I do not point out that there is a potential, uh, one of the team members, um, is not enough to be an active team member, um, the project manager based on that reference information. Um, just for your consideration within this grouping. Um, but they're, they have listed, does have, um, a lot of project experience. Good and useful. Very smart. So the team, but if this is the team, I'm a little strong team, but just coming out the project manager, doing that, it's not with them. Um, so I'm taking that in consideration and giving them that 30. So what did you give them? 32. 32. Um, I gave them a 31. And it also noted that, um, there's a project manager that was supporting them. So that was not with the, um, team, but also noted that they, um, are familiar with our services and our workflows and our accounting standards. Yeah. 31 would be a good consensus. Yeah. 31. 31. Theory number two, experience with similar projects. I gave them, uh, 33. I just thought it, uh, continuing in service contract with libraries, library, uh, library rescue, fire rescue, civil buildings, parks, innovations. And they've got, they've got several similar projects. I gave them a 33 as well. Yeah. Um, I felt like, um, they did have nine of the 10 were, um, maybe somewhere in the municipal projects. Um, they did have lots of continuing service projects. Um, the one thing I thought, um, some of them were a little bit older, but within range. I thought that was good. Um, they did have renovations, libraries, parks, fire services, um, new libraries, um, similar to RPS. And, um, again, master cleaning, things like that. So based on that, 30, 31. Um, that's what we want. So, um, within that category, part of the consideration was, um, looking at the team numbers who had listed on there, um, that I saw, if you go into the file of each sheet, like who was involved, um, like Marcel and Derek, again, the team member there as the reference later, that's something that is in consideration. That's important. So based on that, I give them a 31. Um, would we be okay with a 31 or 32? Okay with a 31. Okay. 31 is a consensus. 31. 31 consensus. Criteria number three, schedule and budget requirements. I gave them a 13 out of 15. Just note on here, strong continuing services, responsiveness, project controls, QA, QC, some additional measurable schedule across control metrics. Uh, what if strength members thought the proposal would not give them a 13 out of 15. This category, I thought they hit all the marks. Um, there really wasn't anything missing. They described all the tools, um, milestones, phasing, um, accelerated delivery. And they talked about, so it really met all of the needs. So I gave them a 15. That's fair. I also gave them a 13. Um, but I would not disagree with 15. I think that they, um, demonstrated, um, a good ability to stay on time and, you know, to meet the schedule. And, um, like you said, they've got cost, cost control built in, and they've got some QA, QC. So I'd be willing to agree with that. Okay. Um, let's get 14. Um, let's get 14. Um, let's get 14. Um, let's get 14. Um, let's get 14. Yeah. I think consensus is 14. Year number four, current and projected workload. Uh, I gave my third thing on this, uh, infrastructure, staff, and capacity, multiple office locations, backup staffing. The one knock I had on is the workload section. They provided more forecast and staffing allocations. So now that I'm looking at it now, you know, the 12 or the 30 out of 15 might be a little high. What I had saw was, um, a couple things. They did look like they had 60 to 75% availability. Um, but again, because of the performance of the PM might lose their availability, I took that consideration. And then, um, they didn't show their consultants, um, which are consultants. So based on that, I've given, I gave them a 12. Okay. I'm reviewing everything. I would agree with James. It could probably come down. It was fun with a generous, but I did note that they, um, noted that they were highly motivated and immediately available to bring themselves to us. That is true. Um, let's see. So the last category, if we were to get the 9 to 11 range, um, which is the midpoint, um, of those two categories, submittal shows the consultants project team has adequate time and available personnel to complete service on schedule. Um, the other one, the 12 to 15 that submittal shows consultants project team has adequate time and available to complete services on schedule and submittal indicates backup staff and capability and event of the circumstances. I think we're wanting to go live. I agree with you on that. Okay. So I'm reading it out. I've got a 11, three, 11, I think consensus. Go through those consensus scores, just to make sure we have them recorded correctly. Uh, Fletcher and Garcia for criteria one was a 31. Criteria two is a 31. Criteria three was a 14. Criteria four was a 11. Uh, they, they met the SBE bonus points. They had five, a past performance, a score of five. Uh, volume of work was a zero. Uh, that puts their total points at 97. Okay. Now at this time, maybe we'd like to take a little five minute break. Okay. We'll return at 2 15. We'll go ahead and continue on. Our next firm that we're going to be discussing is forefront architecture and engineering LLC. Thank you. The first one is the team's experience or category. We have, um, we had a firm that has some experience with the registered architect 28. Um, they did have some municipal projects. It looked like, um, they had any or the project. No, no. Um, the issue is that, um, it did not look like she was an architect. Let me just go to 5,000. As you can. And so taking that consideration would be important there. Yeah. She's an interior design degree. So I mean, that would be the project designer. Architectural lead is not Davis. I mean, principal, um, that it wasn't, um, clear to me. Some of the sub consultants of the disciplines. Um, so the organization did not appear, um, have a clear organization. Um, it had some typos. It said understanding the project is Hillsborough Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. Um, didn't have any continuing contract references. Um, so that's what I was looking at. Based on that, I had given a lower score of the floor. I mean, it said that they had a continuing contract. Okay. Okay. Okay. Um, so affordable housing. So affordable housing initiative is somewhat that you think of it like that, but not necessarily, um, what you see operations on the bottom. Affordable housing. If you want to consider that. That's the one. I guess that might have been what I referenced there in my notes. Um, regardless, I gave them a 20. Um, they thought that they had adequate experience. I'm telling you as well, this kind of, the knock on them I put on here was basically a lot about structural engineering. Aspect, uh, the QABC and that kind of things. It's decent. It's decent. That's kind of. Right. But just looking at it. I'm just looking at it. So like the, um, engineering lead, who's an engineer, um, it says if native, this guy would come in, but really the other one was the material designer. So I just don't think I have, I didn't feel like it had a good experience doing that for the personnel. So I thought it was on the lower side of, they didn't have, um, the organization that wasn't, um, there that we would need to complete the project. Um, so I can live it coming up, but this seven to 13. Yeah. Category. Um, some had some experience, but they were lacking some, some of the project organizations have, um, in my opinion. What was yours? Um, I was at the lower end, but I think I could go to like a eight, nine, nine. Okay. What do you think? Hold on. Okay. I can agree to go a nine. Okay. I know consensus. The next one is the, uh, firm's experience or projects of a similar size and type. On that one, they had six to 10 projects in place. They were not completed yet. They were ongoing. Um, and then a couple of them were only schematic and didn't continue with what was going on. Um, they did have municipal projects. Um, again, I wasn't clear if they were continuous contracts or not. That's why we said maybe we thought they did, but it wasn't clear to me the noting. And then, um, and then the PM only had one. It looked like they only had one experience within the project. They provided. So they didn't have a lot of accounts and really either 15, but the projects that they provided. So based on that, I've given you enough to obtain the firm's willingness and ability to any kind of one. And that's the second category. Firms experience with projects with similar size and type. So what's your score? Firms with size and type, um, for size and type 39. Yeah. I thought we agreed to, I thought nine was our consensus score. Um, firms experience. For the first one. Oh, for the commercial. We're on the second category. Yeah. So are you in on nine for the second category? Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm in on 22 for the second category. Based on what? Um, uh, again, I mentioned that, um, where I thought that they had the ongoing continuing contract. I don't know because I can bind them all to be on this. So it's on 539 of all of mine, but it says that they have extensive, they hold over 15 ongoing continuing contracts. I'm going to see if I can. First week. So there's where it was. Okay. I gave them a 20. I'll just note it up here. Not experienced public safety buildings, government renovations, facilities, parking structures. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. It's not perfect. Sorry. Just fewer examples of libraries, parks. Look at larger scale projects. That's why. So the gas department renovation ongoing. And we had the Lake County tax collector completing in 2019. The share of marine facilities, schematics, the fire station, 22. That was an assessment, so it wasn't really a whole agent. you know the elections building they were terminated due to the budget risks and that one is about some concerns okay um affordable housing initiative that one is good um the hoffman area resource office center and your house was ongoing um the sand lake vista office building that one is under construction not complete you know the elementary school field house facility and kind of the point sienna plaza residential development they weren't selected for awards so schematic designed only so based on that i didn't that's why i was in that other category of something more complicated and it was based on the projects that submitted so not on the category of they said they have to leave um service contracts in the back so based on that i've given them the 15 in that category but i could come up i'd be willing to look at a higher number within that same category so it could be like a team let's say 17 18 18 18. next keyword is the firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements so based on that um they did have microsoft project they talked about deltech which i think is really more of an internal measurement of people's time but autodesk um they did talk about reducing costs by controlling delays um looking at phasing as tools and making improvements so i thought they covered um quite a bit in there and i've given them 11. um i've given them 11. okay it's a charm i give them 11 too we really agreed on that yeah i guess the the only thing i don't think i was just uh in the details on the garden fire schedule performance so that's kind of i'm not even that we've been waiting on that our last category we have is the um effective firm's recent current and projected workload so on that one um it looked like the staff kind of availability of 40 to 80 percent um but didn't include um detected workload so it just was talking about our current team um so we don't know what will happen in the future and then it did look like now was about 80 percent available um but it didn't discuss like a backup of what if they want to be able they would come in and they did talk about the subs so based on that i've given them a 10 as well but yeah i guess my one concern was uh it had a lot of uh relatively short tenure people with the firm bank of workload that requires oversight so that's kind of okay so for forefront architecture for criteria one we had a score of a nine criteria two was an 18 criteria three was an 11 criteria four was a 10 all in agreement yes okay and for the sbe bonus points uh that was a zero past performance score of a three and volume of work was a five that brings their total points to 56. the next firm we'll be discussing is firm lagnam and those architects criteria one ability ability of firm and its professional personnel um i did that they um were i noted that they had a diverse staff um with project and time management skills um i think that i'm 32. um i agree that they did have a diverse staff they had prior experience with similar project types um the um project manager had a depth of experience they had interior designers on board um hillsborough county experience and continuing service contract experience so based on that 32. 32 as well okay i'll put kind of like what you've been or anything uh had a lot of experience the only thing uh i had that knocked them down a little bit was uh a lot of disciplines were through consultant uh that was something nice about that a little bit here the consensus at 32. so criteria number two service experience with projects of similar size and type um for this one i gave them a 34 that they have extensive experience and they've got community services experience um they've got hillsborough county experience they've got the fire stations the falconberg complex the emergency stove shelters the live stations the downtown elevator if you know the list the list i think it's extensive studying from a 34. and that same line i gave them a 33 uh just from what you said there and um very similar i gave them a 34 but based on um a couple of the projects were in progress still so that's why they didn't get but everything else matched exactly our scope and experience and 34 in the consensus yep okay great so criteria number three the firm's willingness and ability to make schedule and budget requirements um i gave them a 13 for this um i noted that they had um proactive planning um they had cost and schedule validation um they've got some uh looks like innovative strategies so based on that i gave them a 13. i gave them a 14 on there just just because the schedule manager managed by the project coordination budget control i've given them 11 but i did say that they did talk about newly released packages current permitting which was good um coordination workshops phasing life cycle performance which good and they referenced defined counting standards the thing and they talked about some of the redundancy and things like that but i didn't see really the acceleration i'm necessarily that's why i giving them about 11 but i think i'm not some it's some information because it was so strong so um we want to do a 13 you know 13 13 13. and then our criteria number four the effect of the firm's recent uh current and projected workloads i gave them a nine purpose that they have sufficient staffing to manage the project but is sufficient exactly yeah i gave them a 12 just noted on here and then the workload forecast and staff and allocation detail was provided so i gave the toilet okay and um i did see that their commit was commitment was between 40 and 65 percent um but they did project their availability so that was a little bit something i looked at and then their core team was together for a while like 10 and 25 years um with the low staff which was good um but based on that i gave them only 11. so if you capture that day either 10 or 11. let's see the categories let's see they're both in that same category in 11 11. so to go over those scores we got a 32 criteria 1 34 criteria 2 13 for category 3 and 11 for category 4. correct okay and for spe bonus points of five past performance score of five and volume of work score of three so that puts their total amount of points at 103 points so the next firm will be evaluating as low trotters engineering corporation criteria number one ability of firm to westmont personnel and my 22 coming out on here it's a little bit less tailored towards hill and pearl county i think some of the other firms they did have experience with their architectural code uh compliance public sector projects uh a lot of frustrated uh infrastructure work that's really in the lowest category and i'll tell you i want to get much feedback on that um so the project manager was in florida well actually hold on yeah he's licensed in the state of illinois not florida with the backup and so even though he's licensed it's not florida and then the project architect it's not florida and they can't really they don't really need the known complications of what they're looking for for florida i'm getting to get foreign and account um settling based on that and um their the history of that they did have local experience with permitting they did have some scarce authority type of work army corps engineer um museum space station zoo it did have municipal experience but i was i was missing that and maybe that's a typo on there but it says licensed architect state of the limelight okay so i don't know how you can go about that so based on that i've given i had given them a 15 as i'm you know overly impressed but it was not you know the fit and the 14 to 20 category was bad but levels of experience and 14 categories proposed project managers qualifications are adequate so i don't think they are adequate i think i'm not being licensed in florida so i just i think we need to come down to the category of jerry's zero to six maybe if i i'm going to do that you can't really see how to see this but that's a success by theory number two experience with similar projects i'm going to give them 19 on this and besides a lot of chicago area projects libraries fire stations anything so i can give them a 20 just again they did have a lot of similar experience but a couple of more in progress which complete yet so at least on that i think much i i did give them an 18 um um i'm already consensus i'm not sure that that's all yeah other than 19 would be concerned with 19 consensus 19. tier number three schedule and budget requirements i gave them a 10 on this i just know on here that i can do it regarding whatever response continuing service delivery local staff and availability schedules management procedures based on the information i have but that um they did have some cpm they did do baseline updates of that early contractor involvement which sometimes we do sometimes we don't do pm approach experienced personnel is what they referenced but there really wasn't a lot of specific information um they're um have a question to ask you yes so because they are only in Illinois and it talks about how they visit the sites frequently they would have to get on the plane and come to the sites that's correct okay so just taking my consideration that would take them effort to get on the plane to come to tampa to make site business so taking that as it is as a comment um so but based on that i put um what they submitted i've given them in the lower category uh do we have um three to five i've done here so um number to five all right and uh go ahead and just take a break we're just gonna cut cut it right in the middle and then we'll get right back to it you just want to take a break anyway thank you all right thank you all for the brief intermission oh we're gonna go and continue we were talking about um the first category and in the first category based on the permission that they submitted i have given them a five so the first category for glove trotters and given them a space we're going all the way back to criteria number one yeah we'll still uh oh we're going back well we were on number three right we were on number three all right we're starting oh no i just oh okay you said for criteria one we've already given them your score so for criteria one right now i have a six criteria two was a 19 and then we were on criteria three and i think that's going to give them your score yeah so for criteria three i had uh 11 based on the criteria there um 11 shows a good understanding and approach to scope schedule and budget project and budget uh project budget and schedule can be met and based on their comments that they had experienced personnel and commitment to a strong client relationship um it sounded like they had the ability to meet those requirements with an 11 for me okay so i think based on that category of the between 9 and 11 is middle shows good understanding of an approach to scope schedule and budget project budget and schedule can be met so they did talk about some of the categories um within there so is a 10 consensus okay it's 10. tier number four current protective workload i gave them a nine straight active public sector workload experience versus mail uh just demonstrated uh fewer uh services and ability to support multiple county assignments that if they were given so i gave them like that one given them a seven based on um some titles in there referencing the county park project and some other information and um the availability so i can give them that or that one i gave them a 12 but only because they noted um that they had about backup staffing plan in place so within that category we can be willing to look at the 9 to 11 this middle shows the consultants project team has adequate time available personnel to complete services on schedule yep yeah so how about a um all right so for globetrotter engineer criteria one was a six criteria two was a nineteen criteria three was a ten criteria four was a ten that's all right yeah uh for the spe bonus points that zero for the past performance points they had three and for the volume of work they had five so that brings their grand total of points to 53. the next firm will be evaluating is goodwind mills yeah i'd be happy to be glad you want to goodwind mills um the criteria number one ability of its firm and professional personnel um i gave them a 28 um i used to have um marissa who's leading the tampa architects team she's a licensed architect and project manager um they've got extensive experience so i gave them a 20. i gave them a 29 and they're spouting uh abilities uh for technical and i'm sorry i don't know i think you know 30 based on their experience that they had and the project types um that they listed and a lot of continuing service contract experience on page 129 is that's all the good consults if i mean they're probably right um so for the next section the firm's experience with projects that's similar size and type and then i think they did notice that they had um similar projects that they had done similar um renovation projects i you noted that they had um extensive experience with continuing contracts thinking about it now i could probably give my score okay but for right now it's just 26. okay i gave them a 27. negative thing i had to say was just um experience that said with the other firms so let me say okay looking at 30 um based on what they estimated and the continuing service contracts and similar work experience um local farming um food only thing i did note is they only provided eight projects with some of the continuing services reference within there but eight specific projects within that so based on that um i've given them a 30. so would we want to look at a 27th grade in 27 27 27 27 27 27 same category for criteria number street affirms willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements uh for this one i gave them an 11. they have a project management approach um and schedule control but they didn't necessarily see where there is a backup plan a backup 13 of this noted strong understanding project schedule and budget management consulting coordination experience delivering public center project on schedule within within budget on this i've given them a nine nine based on the cost estimates were there about each of these i talked about they have some good tools um then i have a little bit of concern with questions about project managers and manager whatever done here but that would be done that i've given them a nine so what if we look at a nine to 11 this middle shows good understanding of an approach to scope schedule and budget project budget and schedule can be met if we'd be comfortable at a 10 or 11 category the effect of the firm's recent current and projected workload i put there i gave them also a 10. um it looks like they do regular cross-training um it looks like they've got some scalable team structure but i gave them a 10. i gave them a 12 on this uh that they had adequate staffing dev organization capacity to support multiple assignments i've given them a 10. um based on they had between 20 and 50 availability and it looked like their approach listing a future workload was sort of similar so um based on the information they presented i give them a 10. so we have two tasks in petrol and our 11 would be okay and 10 green and 10. okay for goodwin mills we had a 29 for criteria one 27 for criteria two uh 10 for criteria three as well as a 10 for criteria four okay for the sve bonus points there was a zero for past performance score was a three and a five for volume of work so this puts goodwin mills grand total at 84 points okay okay the next firm we'll be looking at is uh gresham smith gresham smith gresham smith thank you yeah so criteria number one ability a firm international person now i gave them a 32 uh 34 just got it on here it's actually an exceptional vote looks like the actual engineering they're from fees and house capabilities of course they have a huge stampa bay residents it's running out of 32. i gave them about 28 just because the project manager was not an architect she was an interior designer um but other than that they had a good background so i'm gonna say even on 32 um getting their accounts as far because you know we've got diverse interior design landscape architecture for life engineering you could get me on qualifications so project managers and lisa has a little so she's a 25 year military bachelor of 11 years and her bachelor of arts in interior design seven years of experience arts institute international kansas city um so i didn't see how or qualifications because it would be not above average qualifications for that in my opinion so that would be in the lower range of the qualifications that's why i wasn't up in the upper part but everything else you know i would say it would be a sufficient not like if we looked at um i really think what do we think about the 28th in that category based on that 28th based on the thing or page number two to number two experience similar projects uh 33 elements uh demonstrated uh a lot of experience with fire station libraries facilities uh similar projects so certainly 32 the second category again 32 i'm sorry 34 34 34 okay sorry 31 okay um this one um i did see they have continuing contract experience with usf and some other things on the feasibility studies offices labs or windows there were a couple projects that weren't complete like four out of ten um and then the experience we provided wasn't really a good team um so i've given them the 29 okay um uh for a lot of the same reasons but uh still admitted and some of the ones that you needed i gave them a 33. so like those um um category of 28 to 30 so it's right on the edge um prime so 30 to 36 is prime firm has superior past and recent successful experience with projects of the summer size and type prime firms approach and methods proposed are superior to provide the level of service required to the project all of the services and scopes provided for representing projects are similar on the ps scope but based on some of them not being complete and some of them you really don't have a team's experience that's why i was in the regular category but how about like a 30 makes sense to go for you yeah yeah we can even do yeah we'll through 30. 30 is consensus tier number three schedule and budget requirements in the 14th on this uh whether it's exceptional or standard rapid response continuing service delivery or delivery mobilization and the federal controls so they did talk about schedule acceleration um good understanding of the project that they talked about bim and other but i was missing the budget component of it i didn't see where they were referencing they put the word in budget but then really didn't describe what was happening with budget control so on that i've given them actually an eight i gave them a 13. okay yeah in their project management management permission they did note budget so they didn't have the word budget but they didn't really describe what it was um but i'm willing to come out um some of that because they did describe the other components um within there um how about the lower component of the 15 these assumptions criteria number four current projected work code i gave them 13 on this uh substantial staffing depth extensive but very short fees or construction management management management assignments and a pretty large portfolio so that's the one thing i was a little concerned about uh balancing that demand that they may have so looking back 13 may be a little high but that's that one was on the lower side just because if you look at the information that they provided not that i don't think they're from due to the loop when they're talking about budget and workload it doesn't have any of the project there's the team that this is that they're providing information on it doesn't have the sub consultants and it's just a generic graphic of something basically on here that wasn't very it didn't have the team members and it will say congratulations it didn't give me information i can really evaluate on and so i was down in the forward range and that's saying that that's the middle shows that the consultant's workload come in as well i mean i believe yeah i mean it seems what they're submitted and then but as i can even just yeah even though they probably can it just the information they provided didn't have yeah the information that they needed evaluate i'm not sure kind of where do you work um oh i'm sorry i never i noticed that they had um they they noted that they did have a strong internal backup resource so um i do agree the graph's a little funny um but they they did say that they had a strong internal backup resource um to make sure that services were interrupted so i did register that yeah um the text was somewhat there um but if we look at so if we're in the higher range that was the middle shows the consultants project team has adequate staffing available to complete services on schedule did they show it to us in that here it's a platform but like yeah let's go this middle indicates backup staffing capability and then if unforeseen services you know it's really all based and just they saved all right so i'm just curious i still really linked up i hear you and maybe i was missing it so that's why we just made it in the middle there of what you had anything i had the lower component because um it didn't give information within there but um how about like a six or eight six to eight seven seven seven i like seven at least six to eight seven sounds good it's a consensus that better than that okay so it's like that all right well that wraps up the four criterias i had 28 for the consensus score for criteria one 30 for criteria two 13 for criteria three and a seven for criteria four confirmed uh for their sbe bonus points they had a five uh for past performance was a three the volume of work was up five so in this case that brought their grand total to 91 points okay the next firm that we will be evaluating is healthlamps plus the cap so on this one um with the first category of experience the thing that i saw that was the same depressions that's what that the last one is that's what that's what that's what that's what that's what 13. okay yeah okay yeah so with this one um what i want to point out what they submitted so it looks like the um project manager as a project architect okay as a project architect so on this one it looked like they had um a lot of professionals um they did have all the disciplines that they needed um they did have a good understanding of the project um they had a hundred employees um 1200 in florida 1200 and overall um so with that thing i'll be spending with that one that's fine so based on that information um i would say at 22 and for that one we give them a 25 i'm getting a multi multi-disciplinary consultant team i keep them on 25 as well just kind of noting the internal staffing smaller than several other firms so they even categorize the project manager's qualifications so the project manager day-to-day contact events methi is an architect with his past experience not under this firm but another fund lawn and associates um consolidating this facility um so looking at that within the category he probably is i would think qualified um project manager so would if we look at the range of 20 i would be willing to go up to 25 on that 20 so the next category really um the process explains the projects of a similar size and type on that one um they did have continuing service contracts with usf um some feasibility studies office labs one thing i did note is that several of the projects they presented were not complete like four out of the ten and only one out of the ten had been experience um which so that wasn't part of the team's experience with them there um so based on that i've given them a um 22 for um some very similar reasons i guess i'm at 23. yeah 23 as well i know what you guys are saying a lot of it seemed to emphasize a lot of innovations rather than growing up constructions right here i'll be the one who can mention make sure you use the consensus the next one is um the firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements so in that one she has uh they did have a good understanding continuing contracts they talked about many different um tools that they had um the one component that was a little bit missing here was to talk about the budget so if we go we have a lot of it talks about schedule they did talk a little bit about budget control so based on that i would give them i gave them a 10. i gave them 11. um they did you know lately touch on the budget they had an efficient delivery of multiple task orders but i would have yeah it's 11 11 is what i gave them okay i gave them a 10 as well but i just got another one she was saying about the budget but i gave them a 10. okay i think we'll need to change my score to a 10. okay 10 is consensus and then the last category is uh projected workload and projected and that one we have um the one thing that was missing a little bit it did have the project team which was 40 to 70 percent of the ability which was good it just didn't have um some of the contractors on there so based on that i gave them a 10. the basis that they did scale quickly or just put them in okay they didn't come as well just kind of know the final staffing resource that responded somewhere they're trying to be glad i have well it's all been supported sounds good consensus of the tank we'll run through those consensus scores again for a hall flance and paquette uh we had a consensus score of 25 criteria one 23 for criteria two a 10 for criteria three as well as a 10 for criteria four correct okay for the sbe uh bonus points that was a zero for past performance that was a three and volume of work was a five which puts the grand total of points uh to 76 points and that was our 13th out of 26 firms so that was about that's 3 11 right now so we would have about an hour and 15 minutes to go through the remaining if you would like to or if you would like to conclude for today and readjourn tomorrow we could do that as well sounds good well that concludes the first group of 13 evaluated firms so we're going to reconvene tomorrow june 12th to discuss the remaining 13 firms so thank you all for your time and we'll see you tomorrow