All right, good morning committee members, well good afternoon committee members and other parties of interest. The Evaluation Committee Meeting for RPS 2600137 Miscellaneous Architecture Engineering Services will be held in partner means 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 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 of the committee members to introduce themselves for the record beginning with the committee chair. Good afternoon, I'm Amy Jarnon with Capital Programs, Hillsborough County. Good afternoon, I'm Hannah T. Trinton, I'm with Hillsborough County Public Works Contract Management Team. Good afternoon, I'm Phil LeVant, Project Management, Capital Programs. Thank you. The committee will evaluate, discuss, and score by consensus the proposals received for the project. 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 based on the following criteria and I'm going to refer to the criteria as criteria one, two, three, and four. So for criteria one, we have the ability of its ability of firm and its professional personnel with the total points allowance of 34. Criteria two is the firm's experience with projects of similar size and type, the maximum points of 36. Criteria three is firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements, maximum points of 15. The effect of firm's recent, current and projected workload, which also has a maximum score of 13 points. There's also three separate categories, one being the SBE bonus points, which is the economic development small business bonus points of a maximum of five. We have past performance bonus points of an additional five, and volume of work also with a maximum of five bonus points. So the evaluation committee chair, Amy Jarman, will lead the discussion for the scoring. After each category is discussed, please state the final consensus agreed upon so I may record it in the score sheet. After the conclusion of the scoring, I will go ahead and verify the scores with the committee and provide the ranking of the proposals. So at this point, Amy, I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to you, and we're going to be starting with ICE and Tropics, Inc. Okay, great. Thank you. So thank you again, committee members for being again today. So with ICE and Tropics, we'll do the same thing where we did we'll go in a weird circle. So I'll start with this one and ICE and Tropics. So in our first category, ability of firm and professional personnel, this firm, I found that they were mechanically based firm, which if you remember within our call, the qualifications we are looking for, are the range of services include basic ANA services or special services pertaining but not limited to architectural civil, landscaping, structure, mechanical, planning and electrical elements of the projects including any special needs. Also included our project management and planning services. So based on that information with the focus on the mechanical side, not really the architectural side of what our requirements are, I've given enough work in this category. So for ICE and Tropics, I didn't feel that their disciplines and leaderships were aligned with the contracts that you're looking for and the disciplines we were looking for. I kept them in the adequate range. I gave them a 16. Okay. The same lies I actually gave on my plan, just noting the same things, just the artificial engineering capabilities, staff, devs, QA, QC structure. So I gave. So I think the challenge we have here is they wouldn't be able to provide the services we would need. So because they don't have an architect and it's not really, although it's probably a great fund or a handful of funds, it's not really what we were looking for. So I think that really, if we look at the categories back in here. So 06 is just project team personnel do not have appropriate level of qualifications and experience. Project team does not contain all critical disciplines. Organization and project team is appropriate. Prime firm lacks adequate professional resources to provide services and prime firm lacks understanding of the proposed project and what will be required to complete it. And the proposed project manager is not appropriate. So I know that the effort categories have some, for example, 7 to 13 is proposed project managers qualifications are marginal. So I don't know if we have any thoughts on that. And that's why I was in the upper part of the lower ranges. Although look like, you know, they have potential as a firm. It's just that they're not meeting or needs that are in that category. But like they're not. So you're at 4, 16 and 10. Okay. So that's fair. Eight is our consensus. So in the next category, the firm's experience with projects of a similar status and type. It really, they have educational projects, but the focus was again on schools. For mechanical side of HVAC, they did have collaboration, but their experience was really based on the subcontractor for the other services. For example, Lendron von Niko Jensen, one of some of the prime firms that they worked with, the key design group. So on that one, I had put them in a category of the lower one, but the upper part of the lower one was a four. I had given them an eight. My notes is that there was no clear representative, but I'm sorry, a project list. There's no clear project list. That was depending on a strong set. It says I couldn't identify a strong set of similar projects in type and size with the role, cost, duration, status, and methods. I gave my eight as well. Just note, I was technically confident on mechanical, like the administrative leadership of the functions for architectural engineering. So I gave my eight. So the six to 13, which, you know, we're talking about the eights and this prime firm has minor successful experience with projects of a similar size and type. And then zero to five is prime firm has marginal experience with projects of similar size. So minor versus marginal. I could support minimum. So if we look at maybe six on the lower end of that category, just because it feels like it's not really meeting the intent with the thing. So the six. Yeah, I think the side says six. The next one, firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. On this one, they talked a little bit about budget, but there really wasn't any supporting information. It was really missing a lot of information there. So on that one, I had given them a two on the low end side, because I have smithel does not address any of the scheduler budget. It really was. I didn't see the information in there. So I had given them a four, but I didn't note that the documentation for the schedule and budget was insufficient and didn't provide any detail for schedule and budget, any acceleration across the incentive that was listening. If I'm six, I don't know what you guys are saying, but I just demonstrated basic understanding of the construction coordination budget, but provided limited project management procedures like QA QC system. So I don't need six. They do it in the cover sheet. They talk a little bit about it. You really have to extract it. So how about in the lower end of that second category, is three to five. So what if we do it? Three is the consensus. Then the last category for this is effective firms, recent, current and projected workload. So on this one, the cover sheet talks about taking on projects that wouldn't over commit, but it's a young firm and it's really not, it doesn't have the team members. I don't know who the subconsultants are. They don't know who would be working on it. So on that one, I've given them a two. Similar in what you're saying. I didn't locate any staffing availability or percentages or anything like that. So I gave them a three. Okay. Same odds. I gave them a six. Just noting, never reliance on a single principal engineer, lack of worker value, physical area of support. There's some confidence in some assignments that could have been good. So I gave them a six. Okay. What if we look in that second category of some of the shows consultant's workload commitments will impact his ability to complete services on schedule? Or do we think we're in the first category of the zero to two? The middle shows that consultant does not have sufficient renewable personality complete services on schedule. So I think the commitments are, they don't really have a full team too, right? We don't know who they are. So if we went to the lower portion of the project, I'll do, maybe a study. Maybe it's maybe it's maybe it's maybe it's maybe it's maybe it's maybe it's maybe it's maybe it's okay. From those scores for isentropics, criteria number one, we had a score of eight, but criteria two was a six, criteria three was a three, criteria four was a three. The SB bonus points was a zero, past performance score of a three, and volume of work score of five. This brings their portal score to 28. The next firm we'll be looking at is Gerald McCamps, Architecture Inc. Perfect. So for criteria number one, the ability of the firm and its professional personnel, I rated them a 26. I noted that they had a multi-disciplinary consultant support, as well as the architect as the project manager. The justification I got for May 26. Okay. I don't know, I gave them a 27, just knowing the internal staff staff is smaller than several other competitors, less heavily on consultants, engineering, so I gave them a 27. I had looked at a couple things here. I was actually at a 21, and the reason why with their project manager is not registered in what he is, not registered as an architect. So that was, I couldn't find, I knew I mentioned he was, but I didn't see it, but I didn't see it. So based on that, I thought we had some good, I thought he was an architect. But there are other architects involved with the project manager project manager manager. And then just because, I thought that also that they had some, they had a good understanding of some of it. They did have some graphic response they talked about with multiple concurrent projects, which was great. But I was looking at the 21 component there. So where were we again? So we're at 21, 26 and 27. Yeah, 24. 24. 24. There we have consensus of 24. Okay, so for criteria number two, the firm's experience with projects of a similar size. And I needed them a 24. I noted their Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, their work with the City of Tampa, City of St. Pete, Tampa Housing Authority. So I did feel like there was some things there. The, some of the projects, some of the details on the projects were a little less complete than some of the other firms. The, some of the projects, some of the projects, some of the projects, some of them were related to the project itself. Um, and then they had experience with city of Tampa, Tampa police department, things like that. Um, but I didn't see that there was a lot of depth in those projects. Let me just make sure. So the details for, you know, so I was thinking that, um, that's why I get the 20, I was at 20, that's where I left. So we were at 20, 24. So would 22 do that come? Yeah. Confirmed? Yeah. Yeah. 22. So for criteria number three, the firm's willingness to meet the schedule and budget requirement. Um, I gave them a 14 on this. Um, I felt like the detailed, uh, the, the schedule and budget section was detailed and strong. Um, I noted that they had active critical path schedules. They had milestone deliverables at 30, 60, 90, and 100, which are like, uh, weekly, weekly tracking, um, for the day. Yep. I think about 11, just knowing, uh, smaller internal resources, uh, relies on key personnel that require work with balancing during the period. So I think about that. I had given them a 14, um, based on, they did have some, they talked about milestones again, the same thing we had said, Hannah, and they talked about delivery improvements, um, using prototypes, which I think we use a lot. Um, we try to, um, standardization, tracking, manage the ability to manage multiple tasks or task orders. So that's what I was looking at, was with the 14, um, would you be okay with the 13th? And you guys think about consensus of the 13th? Okay. And for criteria number four, the effect of the firm's recent current and projected workload, I gave them a 13 on this section. Um, I noticed that the workload section provides, um, 65% staff utilization, so 35% capacity. Um, uh, it explains how, um, they would use consultants to scale to demand, um, to 13. That makes sense. Well, yeah, this is where, um, it's kind of the same things, kind of over to demonstrate ability, support, continuing service assignments, uh, strong local presence, flexible staff. I love it. I give them a 10, um, I hear what both of you are saying. Um, I did also note about the capacity, about 35% right now, 65% utilization. And they had some backup, um, redundancy, um, and then they have long-term consultants, which was good, but I've given them a 10. Would we be comfortable with a, um, 11 or 12? I would be comfortable with 11. Yeah. I mean, if we do 12, that's right on the line, so if we do 11. 11 or, let's do 11 as a census. I'm going to just go through those numbers once again. Uh, for criteria one, the score of 24, criteria two, score of 22, criteria three was a 13, and criteria four was an 11. Confirm. They had a five bonus points for SPE, three bonus points for past performance, and five bonus points for volume of work, bringing their grand total to 83 points. The next firm we will be reviewing is JVB Architect LLC. Yeah, they have a smaller firm that is 10 people. They have two architects, but they did have experiments that was similar to what they were doing. They were founded, you know, 2025, and they do public and private. They have, um, not only municipal, they did list some other retail and some other components within there. Um, and then they had local experience with permitting. Um, it did look like, um, the PM that I did note that I believe he is registered in the Philippines. Uh, that was one of the other things that I did in consideration of that, but, um, I give them a 20. Um, for that section, we gave them a 26. Uh, they also noted that they relied on, um, consultant support for a lot of their specialty engineering. And I didn't see where they were, there isn't even a unique link from site individuals at their, um, at their firm. So, yeah, that would be okay with the chances of 26. For two experience with similar projects, I gave them a 27 on this. I seem to focus more on smaller to mid-sized renovations, uh, large, uh, county projects or highly complex facilities. So, I gave them a 27. 25. I saw that three of the 10 problems were completely, um, stone progress. Um, and then I did see that a lot of the projects had both Joe and Kerwin listed, which is good. They did have a variety of projects and, you know, they were working with Hillsborough County Sheriff's office, which is good. Um, so I'd give them a 12. And they gave them a 25 as well. Um, I often added them for attorney sheriff's, uh, with, uh, work. Okay. Good. If you should set us as well, but passing it in there, um, work with the National Guard Armory would you be comfortable with 25? Okay. Consensus is 25. Two. Number three. Uh, schedule budget requirements. I actually gave them a 13 on this. I seem to have a stronger standing of schedule and rapid response of executive coordination. Uh, so I gave the 13. Well, on this one, um, I've given them a, um, 10 on this one. And they did talk about accelerating the projects, which was good. Um, informing the scope and budget value engineering, which, um, sometimes we have to do in open communications. Um, so I've given them a 10. Um, I gave them a 10 as well. And they, they did note that they addressed schedule and budget. They explain their personnel, but the, um, the proposal is a little less detailed than, you know, that looks like to have given an air score. I'll show you the 10. Okay. Are you comfortable that it's in that same category of nine to 11, um, or are you okay in that category? Or is it 11? 11? Yeah. 11 on 11? That's good. A tier number four current objective was low. I think that, I don't know, just knowing that smaller staffing, limited organization depth, uh, reduced flexibility compared to some other terms. What did you get again? 11. Okay. On this one, I've given them a nine. Um, I think what my concern was on this is, um, Kerwin has currently about 20 to 60% and Joe 15 to 40, which is one with pretty low availability, but you never know, um, like how things go, but I give them a nine. And for this one, they need them a 10. Um, they did note that they stated that they're both this dwindling and put their projects moving in the direction, but they didn't know any, um, like the backup stacking plans. That's true. That's kind of a lot of flexibility came in when they do that. It's kind of a lot. The 10's right in the middle of that category. Would you be comfortable with the 10? Yep. 10 is consensual. For criteria one, I had 26 criteria. Two is a 25 criteria. Three is 11 criteria. Four is a 10. Okay. And they got five points for the SBE bonus points, three for the past performance and five points for volume of work, which brings their grand total to 85 points. The next firm we'll be looking at is K2M design. So in the first category, um, I give them a 28. Um, a lot of their work was continuing contracts. They have a big staff of 130 staff, nine offices nationwide, the new Tampa. So a lot of depth, um, with office experience. Um, they had all sorts of experience in different project types. Um, the project manager, um, had 14 experience in municipal work. Um, so they had all the consultants. So I've given them again, a 20, making them a 20. That's what happened. Um, I noted that they did have, um, multidisciplinary. So they had architecture, design, uh, engineering, landscape, architecture. Um, yeah. Oh, I said I would, um, I did 28 to 34 only because, um, the team is broad and the proposal references strong task order experience. I gave them a 29. I was saying that you guys were saying just, uh, didn't know they had like 130 professionals nationwide. So that was good, uh, experience in public safety, civic, uh, I just don't have whole other customer accounting, uh, experience. I was 20 to 29. Would you be comfortable with the 28 or do you want to go out to 28? No. 28. That's consensus 28. But the next category is firms experience with projects of a similar size and type. On this one, I've given them a 25. And, um, some of the things I was looking at is by the 10, um, didn't explain the specific projects, just reference continuing the service projects. Okay. Um, and, um, I knew they had experience with them like HCBSO, but they just didn't list the projects, um, but they had a lot of variety of other types of projects. So, um, and 17 continuing services projects listed that way. So that's, I gave them a 25. Okay. I gave them a 28. I think they had a fair experience, uh, appeared to be relevant and broad, um, but they didn't see anything. I gave them a 20. 27. Um, and quite a few projects, uh, bicycle chem and community center, pressure operations. Um, most of them were all smaller to mid-size. So I gave them a 27. I'd be a, okay, we'll go to 27. I think that would be, you know, right? Because you got this agreement. Yeah. 27 and 27. Next category is firms willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. On this one, I'd give them 11. They talked about some progress reports, the critical path activities. They did reference budget and schedule within this. Um, they talked about some trends, some regional experience, value engineering, again, and an option in all of this. So I'd give them that again. So this one I gave them at 13. Um, I did note that they're included schedule and budget, um, detailed milestones, um, quick start, graphic schedules, by weekly schedules, progress reports, phase percent, complete reports, um, and regular budget alignment. So I gave them a 13. I gave them 11. That's really well. Um, just kind of noted, uh, they showed, uh, effective project organization, construction and admin capability. Um, it was, the one thing was the consultant-based engineering disciplines, and they create occasional coordination challenges on top of it on the air. Uh, so I gave them a 13. I was looking at it. All right. I was wondering if you want to consider the category of 9-11. Um, because a couple of these were studies are not completely worth some of that, but it's just a consideration. Um, you know, we had, uh, 11, 11, and 13. Would you be okay? Would everyone be okay with that alone? I think I mentioned really. And since it's been 11. All right. The last template is, uh, tech and firms recent projected workload. Um, this one, um, I've given, uh, seven and, um, they did have a large firm with 130 design professionals. Um, but currently, you know, their capacity was a little low. Um, and then there were some, and, but they did with some disciplines on there. So I did take that in consideration, but, um, I've given them a 10. I also noted there are 130, um, design professionals, but they didn't note any, uh, backup staffing yet. So let's see from the 10. Uh, people on the team as well, just kind of knowing, you know, smaller staffing than, um, it's a lot of other firms. I'll be okay. I'll go on with the 10. That has the consensus. Okay. For criteria one, I had a 28. Criteria two, 27 points. Criteria three, 11 points. Criteria four, 10 points. Confirmed. Okay. Uh, they had five points, uh, for SBE bonus, three points for past performance, and five points for volume of work. That brings their grand total to 89 points. The next firm we'll be reviewing is Long and Associates. Um, we've got, uh, criteria number one, ability of firm and it's professional personnel. So we've been being 32. Um, I noticed that they had in-house architecture, interior design, electrical and mechanical, structural engineering, architectural. So I have a bigger one list here. Um, and I noticed, uh, that there were several disciplines in-house and the leadership was from, right? Yeah. I gave them the 32 as well, just about the same thing. So fully integrated in-house architectural engineering services. Uh, so I gave them the 32. 34. Um, again, all of what you said, um, and then the fact that they had so many architects on board and all of the staff in-house and the, um, experience with those, Hillsborough County experience. So I've given them a 34th. What do you think about a 33? That's my consensus. I agree. So it was rich in the census. All right. So for criteria number two, the first experience for the project that was able to resize it. I, I gave them 35. Um, I noted that it was representative, uh, there are projects that were representative of what we're doing here. Um, direct continuing services experience with Hillsborough County government, Hillsborough County public schools. Um, it said that they delivered over 50 projects to Hillsborough County on continuous service work orders and 114 to the school district. Um, say even 34, um, and what you were saying about experience with Hillsborough County, but I was in the clear water school systems, fire station libraries. I'm getting 34. Yeah. I'm getting 36 based on everything you had said. Um, and then all the projects were completed. That was a good thing versus not, not being completed. And then they were all similar size and scope. And then the PM was listed. All of it. So I thought that was a really good thing. It is good. Would we want to look at a 35? I like 35. 35 consensus. Right. For criteria number three, the firm has the ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. They gave them a 14. Um, I felt that the, um, the response provided strong controls. Um, they've got weekly coordination meetings, milestone reviews, internal peer reviews, um, internal tracking, um, estimating. So I gave them a 14. I gave them a 14. Good. Um, same line. And I gave them a 15. Um, really reiterating what you said, um, specific that, but they talk about them, does it mean, reason means, which we've, there's a lot. So I thought it was good. Um, how about, um, 14 as a consensus? 14 as a consensus. All right. Number four, um, the effect of the firm's recent current and projected workload. Um, so I gave them a 14 on this as well. Um, I, they, uh, have maximum availability by quarter. They had, um, backup staffing. So I gave them a 14. Okay. 13 on workload management. Uh, I think they're innovative staff, upstream personnel, contracts, uh, may require some balance in terms of big periods, what I've noted, but, uh, 15. I gave them an eight on that one just because, um, they had indicated, you know, they had 30 to 50 percent current variability, but it does increase on 27, but they didn't have their subs on there. So, um, but that, but I'm willing to come up because they did, it was strong. Um, so what if we, um, would you guys be comfortable with like a 13? Yeah. Yeah. 13, 14 consensus. All right. To confirm the scores. So we have 33 points for criteria one, 35 points for criteria two, 14 points for criteria three, 13 points for criteria four. Confirmed. And we have five bonus points for SBE, four bonus points for past performance, and zero bonus points for volume of work, bringing their grand total to 104 points. Uh, the next firm we're going to be taking a look at is Mead and Kent. No relation. Uh, criteria number one, ability of the firm professional personnel, I'll give them a 30 on this. Strong experience, public safety, government, library, parks, renovations, so I'll give them a 30. Okay. Um, I give them a 27. Um, they did have huge amount of professionals, 1,445 offices. Um, and then they have some whole square accounting experiments, QAC program. They did have some special experience, so I might be the one to go up. I gave them a 13 one because I did feel that they had some specialty services as well as their huge amount of international and local, um, personal. How about, um, what do you guys think about the 30? I think 30. 30 is a consensus. Okay. 30. Number two, experience with similar projects. I gave them a 33 on this. I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong one. I gave them a 32 on this. Uh, just now being, uh, demonstrated highly of experience for the law and government facilities, public safety facilities, operation, and emergency operation, libraries, parks. I didn't get the most high is that because, um, a couple of them were self-experienced, um, two of the 10 projects and then seven of the 10 were completed, but a few of them were not completed. Um, and then some projects were a little bit later in the five years that we look at, but they did have good experience, um, and then some of them related to local experience, but, um, based on that, I've given the 18, I had given them a 28. Um, I said that, you know, their proposal was, it did include, um, architectural and engineering, uh, public projects. I think I can come up. Um, they did have a good experience. It's just a couple of those items were they didn't have some of the, um, some of the more, um, some of the more really sub-experience like arena did with public safety. Yeah. Which is really just geotech coming on. And then the library renovations as really a landscape sub. Okay. They're referencing one of their sub-electors. Okay. So I'd be willing to come. And I think, um, they correspond to the range of, uh, the 22 to 29, um, that range. The prime firm has more than adequate successful recent within the past five years experience with projects of similar size and type as it goes on. Um, how about we compromise to, like, to the 27? Okay, 27. Yeah. So that's consensus. Here's number three, schedule of budget requirements. I did for the 12 of all days, uh, and strong project management, uh, experience integrated, uh, A&E delivery, construction admin, cost estimating, facility, uh, assessments, uh, even with what you do. This one, I gave them a 10. Um, they did talk about stakeholder engagement and cost awareness, having the right people on project reschedule, um, but didn't talk about accelerated schedule. So, um, that I could find. So I didn't tell. I gave them an 11. Um, I said that the response describes a clear scope, um, basics of design documents, scope matrix, budget, budget management, um, and the additional, the authority to assign additional staff members. That's true. Thank you, thank you. Would that be a consensus? Yeah. I've got it. 11 consensus. Year number four, current projected workload. I gave them 11 on this. I just know that they have the accession, the accession, I mean, staff resources. I'm thinking kind of where a little bit was a large national workload may require some scheduling balance. So I, so I gave them a 10. I did see that they have listed themselves, which was good, and then they have their availability, which was decent. Um, they did talk about reassigning staff. Um, so I thought that was good in waiting meetings. So I gave them a 10. I gave them an 11 for a pretty similar reason. If I, um, noticed a regular review of the system. Um, I didn't really necessarily feel like a backup other than if that's my backup, but I gave them an 11. Okay. 11. I had to go over the scores. I had a 30 for criteria one at 27 for criteria two, 11 points for criteria three, and 11 points for criteria four. And then I have five bonus points for SBE, three bonus points for past performance, and three bonus points for volume of work, bringing their grand total to 90 points. The next firm we'll be looking at is Rannon and Partners Inc. Um, but the first one I've given them a higher score 32 on this category because they have such good experience with the county. Everything was related to what we actually do here. Um, the subs are all have local experience. Um, and then Rod has 45, you know, Kathleen. So they have some unique projects and they have their experience with that. I gave them a 30. I did, um, say that the project lead was highly experienced, um, and the purpose included, um, many, uh, county projects and public examples. Um, the disciplines I felt like were mixed, but I think I'm a 30. Okay. Same lines. I gave them a 31. Um, what would you guys think about a 31? The next category we have is firms experience with projects of a similar size and a type. On this one, um, I've given them a very high, um, ranking because all their projects were very similar and still in size and everything. And what we did, um, um, I've given them a very high, um, um, ranking because all their projects were very similar and still in size and exactly what we did. Um, so one thing I did see it was missing maybe a little bit of explanation here and there, but, um, and a couple of more completing construction. Given that it was really what we do. So I've given them a 35. Um, I've given them a 31 for this. Okay. I mean, I did that they did a lot of, um, things for accounting projects. That's why I justified it. I keep 33. Just, uh, I was working on the experience that, uh, the courthouse, the detention centers and innovations after planning. So, I mean, the 33, 33, 33, 33, 33. Yes. The next category is firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budgetable clients. Um, this one, um, I've given them an eight because, um, they did talk about establishing milestones, workshops, budget scope, creating budget models, integrating alternates, which is always important for our big projects, um, detailed sub consultants. So I got eight as well. I gave them an 11. Okay. Um, I said the schedule and budget response is clear. Um, they had specific milestones, uh, daily management, model budget. Um, uh, it didn't, it was less developed than the stronger proposals. I gave them an 11. Okay. Eight on 12, uh, uh, strong understanding of phase construction, not the five facility coordination, and security sensitive and violence, the county review process. Eight on 12. So based on the information I was hearing, it looks like, um, they have some assets, uh, good. So what if we look at 11 sensors, tier four is effective from recent current projected workload. Um, this one, um, I didn't have, um, it was 10 to 45% availability, um, but didn't project and, um, digitalists, but people were subs. Um, so I've given them a seven on that category. I might give them a 13, um, because, um, they stated that the 85% of their projects were currently, um, in the final construction phase. And so that would be opening up. And they also had a backup reserve staff and, um, in case they needed to pull those in. Um, smaller internal staff and higher subbalances. So I'll give them my name. Let's think about, um, 11, but some category, so still a bit of the higher point. Okay. That on 11 and 11 is a consensus. To confirm those scores, I had a 31 for criteria one, uh, 33 points for criteria two, 11 points for criteria three, as well as an 11 point for criteria four. They had five points for SBE, five points for past performance and zero points for volume of work, bringing their grand total to 96 points. So that would be firm number seven out of 13 today. So if we wanted, we're a little bit over halfway through to save a five minute break. Okay. So we're going to be back at, uh, 1 54. So our five minute, uh, break is over. So now we're going to be moving on to our eighth firm, which is RGA design. Yep. Criteria number one, ability of the firm professional personnel. I'll give them a 19 on this, just not even smaller organization structure, less, uh, hotel disciplinary debt. That's a lot of larger crimes on the 19. And then 11, um, similar to what you were saying, um, us, there were some experience, but, um, it didn't have some of the depth that I was looking for. So I'm getting a little, um, synergy, fitting them at 16. Okay. And we looked at that category of the 14 to 20 and look around the 16 mark. Yeah. Criteria number two experience with similar projects, 16 on this, uh, just building a fewer comparable accounting projects, uh, limited large scale public sector experience. So I gave it 16. Okay. I can, uh, 10, um, uh, because like five of the nine projects didn't appear to be, um, complete and there were some studies, um, and then it didn't have a lot of the, um, mobile experience. Um, but there were some continuing services and some municipal, but not a lot. So that's what I was looking for. She wants better. Yeah. Am I getting them at 13? Okay. Um, I noted that they had given project examples, uh, but they were less complete. Um, there's less information to take them directly to what we're looking for. So I gave them a 13. Okay. What if we, um, look at the 13, that was the consensus score in this one category? 13? Yeah. I figured number three, schedule and budget requirements. I think one might aid on this. Just know that they had the practical understanding of project delivery, primating, mediating lines, construction, there's a lot less detail. And some other firms that they've submitted was scheduled for budget management systems. And I was, it didn't have a lot of depth. Um, they did talk about some of the estimating and comparables, project examples, some schedule, but they didn't really have a lot of information to review. So I've given them an age. Um, I did get that they, um, get cost control and the estimate, um, that the schedule was less, less detailed and they didn't have any, like, milestone tracking or like a, a formal process that they documented there. What if we were in the middle of that category? Is this seven? Is this seven? I agree. Yeah. So that's consensus. Figure number four, current injected workload. Well, uh, uh, smaller ended workload, but limited staffing, it's flexibility. So, uh, I do buy any of them. Give them a five on that one. Um, they were based on things on like a dollar amount value. So it didn't really have a lot of information on there for that. So I gave them the five. I gave them an age. Okay. Um, it's been a team show, you know, really where they were at, um, for, for a lot of backup support. I see the one to be in, um, like a seven, a number of that category. Yeah. I haven't had those consensus. Yep. Okay. To confirm those scores, we had 16 points for criteria one, 13 points for criteria two, seven points for criteria three, seven points for criteria four. Confirmed. We have zero SBB bonus points, three points for past performance, and five points for volume of work. Bringing our grand total to 51 points. The next firm we'll be taking a look at is Rove Architects. The first category I had given them a 31 based on, um, their continuing service contract, um, similar experience and type, um, how many licensed architects? They have five, um, licensed architects on here. Um, the amount of experience that the design director had, the self-experience, um, the project manager is also the magic professor professor at, um, uh, SACD with a lot of experience. So based on that, I've given, um, a 30 money. I've given them a 31 as well. Um, noting, uh, Rick and Angela's experience. Okay. The next category is firms experiencing projects with a similar size and type. This one, I've given them a 29, um, this one, um, a lot of local experience. Um, most of the projects were completed. Um, a lot of municipal projects, similar types, um, renos, um, they did have some studies, but we do some studies. So that's okay. Some park experience. So, um, I looked at the 29. Um, they ate them at 32, um, for a very similar reason. Um, I said that they have similar, um, building and renovation and, um, public facility samples. And I listed them out. You could start the same thing. Just facilities, municipal projects, building assessments, historic renovations. So I've been preparing to. Willing to come to a 32. They did have a very strong background. They did. So 32. Okay, so the next one is the firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. Um, this one, I give them a nine, um, nine. Um, they were missing some depth on this one. Um, they did talk about some of the consultants. They had a general understanding, but I didn't have a lot of depth. I agree with that. Um, exactly. I gave them a nine. Yep. Um, and then again, you know, like the depth there. People want to let them kind of in the same regards as what both of you guys are saying. Okay. Um, would we want to come up to a 10? Or do we want to come up to a 10 or do we want to come up to a 10? We can come up to a 10 year consensus. Next one is in fact, with problems, recent current and projected workload. Um, on this one, I am giving them nine. Um, they have, you know, they have a long firm, uh, history of a firm, um, with, you know, 13 professionals that look like, um, but they had some commitments, um, and then they didn't have the consultants listed on there. So I was looking at a nine. I gave them an 11 that they said that they, um, dedicate singles for a county. Um, so I gave them an 11 as well. Just kind of know the active, uh, continuing services contracts that they have that kind of a little tricky negotiating. Um, would you be, um, in that category be in the middle of the 10? Just confirm those points. I have 31 points for criteria one, 32 points for criteria two, 10 points for criteria three, and as well as 10 points for criteria four. Okay. Um, Rowe architects got five SB bonus points, three points for past performance, and five points for volume of work, bringing their grand total to 96 points. The next firm we'll be taking a look at is Seoul Design Studio. So for criteria one, for the ability of the firm with professional personality of 28, um, I noted that the lead was an architect, um, the project manager was an architect with 30 years of experience. Page one of 27 said they demonstrated strong, Um, I did see that, um, they have it's on the smaller size of the firm, um, they had two architects, chair designers, 13 staff. Um, they had a full, um, team for subs and then PM was a registered architect. So I'm looking at the 22, you look at it, uh, you will be marked at 27. Okay. Or 20 Stokes. Yeah, I, I could keep 26. We're fine. Yeah, it's 23. Okay. Okay. Okay. So for the firm's experience with practice of a similar size and type, um, I gave them a 26 year. I did know that they have some projects, but they were roadway and drainage and utility improvement, um, so I gave them a 26. Okay. So some, some projects, but, um, I would have liked to see the architectural projects. So I feel willing to come down probably. If I'm a 25, just say, well, as you were saying, I wasn't, I had a big experience with public facilities, utilities, so I've given them, um, a 15 on this one and, um, uh, 25, 25, 25. Yeah. So, um, six of the 10 products weren't complete and then, um, they did have some experience that was very similar in school, but, um, three of the 10 projects were subconsultant experience and not all of it was really their experience. So that's why it's on the other side, but I'd be willing to come up some, um, whether we look at that in the range of the 22 to 29, but maybe on the lower end because some of the projects, I don't know if you guys, they weren't all, maybe they have some subs, you know, experience with it, like 22, 22. Hi, Karen and Mercury, the firm's willingness and ability to equitable investment requirement. Um, I've given them a 13 on this one, um, the schedule and budget section of the response, um, they noted that they, um, uh, had critical paths, milestones. They have acceleration abilities. 13. Yeah. Well, my 11, I would say just, uh, understand the budget, conscious design, phase renovation, department, construction, and, uh, so I'd be included. Looking at, um, some of the components of, um, they didn't have their team members listed, necessarily. They have their subconsultants, which was good, but they didn't indicate 29% of availability. So obviously we had a 10. Make sure. For number three. Yeah. Number three is a 10. Okay. Um, so what if we look at 11? Yeah. I agree. I'm not good. 11. Sure. 11. Okay. Or 10. 11. 11. 11. 11 is a concept. 11. I think you're okay. Yeah, I'm okay with 11. Are you okay with that? Yep. Um, and then for, uh, criteria number four, the effect of the firm's recent, current, and projected workload, um, I noted their, uh, current availability of 29%, their future 52%, I gave them a 10. Okay. I gave them a 10 as well. Just noting a smaller staffing, odds-on, consultant support, and partner balancing. Um, I did see that some of their availability was on the, um, lower side, but it went up, um, going up to 2030, um, they did have some different stuff, and so it was somewhat more on the lower side of availability, but, um, I was looking at a nine, so it'd be okay to go. Can I go to the nine? What's that, sister? Nine. All right. To confirm those scores, I have 26 for criteria one, 22 for criteria two, 11 points for criteria three, and nine points for criteria four, and they had five SBE bonus points, three points for past performance, and five points for volume of work, bringing their grand total to 81 points. The next one we'll be taking a look at is Stratus team. Do you have the liability to firm, professional personnel, it's not in the multi-employed industry, but, uh, disciplinary capability is larger than anything they have public sector, continuing service experience. That's what they want to do. Okay. I'm giving them a 30, really everything that you said, just good experience. Um, the project, they have a lot of experience, um, a lot of local experience, um, so the one thing I did see though, um, in this proposal is they were relying on some of their legacy firms. Um, so just, I looked at that too, but I've given them a, um, 30. Can you mind giving them a 30 as well for this thing, just going along with it, like, basically where you can say, would you want to come back to a 30 or? Yeah. That's something that sounds a little different. It sounds a little different. Year number two, experiment with some of the projects. I gave them a 20-minute, so they demonstrate strong experience at both facilities, public safety facilities, municipal complexes, fire station libraries. I gave them that. Very similar, I gave them a, um, 31 on this one. Um, well, most of them have project manager experience and most of them are completed projects and then the scope was very similar. But, um, I did note that some of them experience was under legacy firms. I don't think they merge. So, um, just take that and consider it. Would have been hired. Yeah, exactly. Well, my good and the legacy firm as well, and to complete this, I gave us a 30. So, the other 29, 30, 31. So, it's, let me pick it up at 30. 30. 30. I think it could be 30. 30 is consensus. Year number three, schedule budget requirements. I gave them a 12 on this. Uh, they've demonstrated strong experience in the past quarter. Uh, project management system. It's consulted coordination to the AQC procedures. I gave them a 12, I think. That's right. I gave them a nine. Um, I did see that they had, they talked about a lot of coordination meetings, um, identifying early potential delays, which is good. And they talked about some of the cost evaluations. Um, so based on that, I give them a nine. I might give them an 11. I know that, uh, I know that their, um, their risk evaluation as well. Um, with some of that, um, they didn't have a strong, it just, a little bit was missing, but, um, so it was 11. Yeah. Yeah. That's it. 11. Okay. That's number four, clearing for gender workload. I gave them a nine, um, part of the, they did have, uh, capacity, like, I didn't get around 20 to 50%, um, but they didn't have their subs or future capacity. So I took that in consideration at the nine. I gave them a 12, um, uh, so that they provided the current allocation and then available percentages. I gave them 12. Okay. Um, would we be okay looking at them 11? Yeah. 11. Yeah. For those scores. I had 30 points for criteria one, as well as 30 points for criteria two, uh, 11 points for criteria three, as well as 11 points for criteria four. Okay. I had five bonus points for SBE three points for past performance and five points for volume of work, putting their grant total at 95 points. The next firm will be reviewing and sweet Sparkman architects. Well, I think that works for me. The first one is ability, a firm, and that's professional personnel, um, but this one, I give them a 28, um, I did feel that they had, um, good experience, um, you know, a lot of continuing services contracts, which was great. Um, the PM was a registered architect, really a lot of good things. Um, so I give them a 28. Um, I gave them a 29. Um, I said that the architecture leadership was strong and the team, um, had depth. I gave them a 26 on this, what you guys were saying, the only thing I had to say was internal staffing depth was a little bit spot in some of the other, uh, uh, firms that I had, but, uh, I don't know the 27th. Okay. Let's think about a, um, are you getting a 27 or 26? 27. 27. Do you be comfortable to come up to a 28? 28. 28. The next one is firm's experience with projects of a similar size and type. Um, this one, I gave them a 28 on this, um, a lot of, most of the projects were completed. Um, most of the projects involved, involved the team members, um, they had similar scope of, um, what we would be looking at, including facility analysis, public works, et cetera. So I lived out at 28. I gave them a 28 as well. Um, they had, uh, previous projects, um, a, uh, strong similar renovation of public facilities. Um, library, uh, library, public safety facilities, work, and restoration. Um, so I gave them 29. Um, I built it 29 or I keep it at 28. 28. 28. 28. I had a great friend's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. So, um, this one, um, I've given, uh, 11, um, based on some of the function of collaboration. They talked about the CPM updates, tracking, prioritization, um, with, that's for schedule and budget. You know, they have some ideas within there, including, um, cost analysis. So I've given them an 11. 29. I've given them a 14. Okay. Um, I noted that they did continuous value assessments. They have quality assurance. Um, it looks like we do cost saving strategies, um, and, uh, energy efficiency, so I gave them a 14. Okay. 12. It's budget control is permitting. Instruction. That man. Give me 20. Would you okay? You okay? 12? Yeah. I feel like 14. Um, we can look at the criteria if you want, but let's see. Um, so the third. So that would be in that, um, last category. Just think it will be in. Yeah. So the 12. 12 is consensus. Okay. 12. And then this last one for this vendor is effective. Promise recent current and projected workload. Um, on this one, I give them a nine. Um, it looked like they had some of the lower availability of 15 to 25%, and then it didn't show subs or a teacher projection. So I give them a nine and I've given them a nine as well. Okay. Same. Okay. So would we want to look at a nine? Or do you want to look at a nine? Or do you want to find a consensus? From the scores for Sweet Supportment, we have 28 for criteria one, as well as 28 for criteria two, 12 points for criteria three, and nine points for criteria four. Confirmed. Confirmed. We have zero SPE bonus points, three points for past performance, and five points for volume of work, bringing their grant total to 85 points. Now we'll be reviewing our final vendor today, which is Wilder Architects. Wilder Architects. So on criteria one, the ability of the firm and its professional personnel, um, I gave them a 33. I noted that they had, um, some specialty engineering, uh, and, uh, 33, right? I gave them a 32. Uh, it was Tixect, Shemal, Ohio, and Rowell County. I gave them a 32 also. I mean, very similar. They had great experience. Um, very, very qualified staff. So I gave them a 32. Would we want to look at a 32 or 32 on that 32? I could have a two or something. 32 is consensus. For criteria number two, the firm's experience with projects about similar site and type. As we noted, they've got a lot of Hillsborough County experience, so I gave them 35. Uh, many were, uh, continuing contract projects, um, with the completion status, 35. Just different, uh, structures, projects, libraries, core, houses, and other work facilities. So I could go on with them once we gave them a 33. Oh, correct. And I gave them a 35 in this category, um, based on all the project experiments was, um, completed. All of it was very similar in scope. Um, and then it had a lot of the same team, uh, we had experience listed. So I'm giving them a 35. Would you guys, um, would you want to come up to a 35? Or do you know what they're looking for? Well, 35 is the results like 35? So for, uh, criteria number three, um, schedule and subject requirement. Um, I gave them a 15 on this. I felt like this was a really, um, good proposal. Um, for the Microsoft project schedules that have their courts, that have matrixes. Um, they, it looked like they had, um, 5% built in. Um, same thing. Same thing. It's just the QA, QC oversight, consulting coordination, you know, county operational expectations. I've been talking. I also gave them a 14. Um, same thing you just said. And, um, I also like how they looked at the budget variance and bid versus, um, what they estimated. Oops. Um, so would it be, um, you know, would you want to be down at 14 or do you want to go up to a position? Are you guys still hit 14? No, they've been down to 14. 14? 14. 14. Yeah. 14 is consensus. Thanks. And the last category here, um, is the, uh, firm's recent current and projected workload. Um, I gave them a 13 here. Um, uh, it provides, uh, uh, the, uh, that it provided availability. Um, uh, they had backups. I gave them a 13. Okay. Okay. I gave them the 20 of the concern I had, which is the ultimate ongoing, multiple active contracts. They require working on balancing. So I gave them a 15 on this one, um, because they had, they were at least showing 20 to 30 percent availability. Um, and it, you know, went up a little bit in 2027. It gave the sub consultants and the teams. Um, but I, I'd be willing to come down a little bit. Um, what do you guys think about the 13 consensus? Yeah. 13. 13 as consensus. All right. To confirm those scores, last but not least, for criteria one, we have a score of 32 points. Criteria two is 35 points. Criteria three is 14 points. And criteria four is 13 points. Okay. Now they did receive five SBE bonus points, five points for past performance and zero points for volume of work, bringing their grand total to 104 points. So at this time, I'm going to start from the first render we looked at yesterday. I have only laid it to the end in alphabetical order and read off all of the points. So grand total points. So we have ASD Sky has 94 total points. Baker Barrios has 99 points. Colliers Engineering has 68 points. CPH Consulting has 92 points. CSA Central has 79 points. Fawley Bryant Architecture has 86 points. Fletchman Garcia has 97 points. Forefront Architecture and Engineering has 56 points. Burr, Wagman and Banks Architects has 103 points. Globe Charter's Engineering Corp has 53 points. Goodwin Mills Cawood has 84 points. Gresham Smith has 91 points. Healthlands and Paquette has 76 points. Isentropics has 28 points. Jarrell McCants Architecture has 83 points. JVB Architecture has 85 points. K2M Design has 89 points. Long and Associates has 104 points. Meade and Hunt has 90 points. Renan and Partners Inc. has 96 points. RGA Design has 51 points. Rho Architects has 96 points. Sol Design Studio has 81 points. Stratus Team has 95 points. Sweet Sparkman Architects has 85 points. And lastly, Waller Architecture has 104 points. So, as stated in the solicitation document, the county may require oral presentations by no fewer than five shortlisted firms. Committee members, please advise if the committee would like oral presentations or to move forward with discussions for the shortlisted firms that the department would like to award contracts to, now would be the time to decide. Could you tell us who the top eight firms are? The top eight firms. You got it. So, I for first is Long and Associates with 104 points and Wilder Architecture with 104 points. Number two is going to be... I have it in order to reiterate it to you. Would that be helpful? Oh, you got it all in order? Yeah. Looks like number three would be Burr Wegman Banks Architects with 103 points. We don't mind confirming. Yes. So, I got it right. Thank you. Number four with 99 points is Baker Barrios Architects. They had 99. That's right. A fifth with 97 points is Fletchman Garcia. Now, sixth with 96 points is Roe Architects. Bear with you. And I had another six, ranking of six with 96 points and that was Rannon and Partners. So, Rannon and Roe are also tied for sixth place. And then we go to eighth place, which is Stratus Team with 95 points. Ninth place is ASD Sky with 94 points. Maybe just one more. And CPH Consulting with 92 points as well. Okay. What's Strata? Can we have a discussion? Is that okay? Yeah. Yeah. So, everyone can go on and let it take a... Do we have... We can discuss here. Okay. So, I think what I'm hearing is we have the option to do those questions and answers. Okay. Which will be if we have defined questions and then we're just going to ask them and they provide answers. So, it's not an interactive style. And maybe you want to just... Maybe you want to tell the two options again. Yeah. So, we're going to have either doing the oral presentations. So, this one we like to give our firms around two weeks to prepare the presentations. And this is going to be more of, you know, we get to ask any of our questions that we have. And then if any of the consultants have any questions to ask us, you know, we have to respond to those questions as well. And then there's also the discussions or Q&A, which is just a phone call, short, brief, 15-minute phone calls with these firms. And we're just asking them questions to kind of have any sort of clarification to their proposals. If there's anything that wasn't really clear in the proposal that you'd like to ask, that would be a time to, you know, ask those. And then they don't... They're not necessarily allowed to ask us any sort of questions. So, it's just a one-sided interview for those discussions where the oral presentations, they're going to prepare that presentation. And it's going to be more of a conversation. They're going to ask us questions. We're going to ask them questions. So, my thoughts on this was, we don't have a specific project. You know, they're all general projects at this point. So, probably the questions and answers are probably more appropriate because we don't really... You know, there's not... Yeah. Yeah. So, keeping in mind that we want to eventually shortlist five firms, what are your thoughts if we ask the top eight firms to do questions and answers? Yeah. And then we could look at that. Top eight is questions and answers, and then we'll do our final kind of recommendation after that point, right? Okay. Yes. So, I'll go ahead and we'll schedule those discussions. We're going with the questions and answers discussions rather than the oral presentations. And I'm going to go ahead and read off those top eight firms once again. So, we have Long & Associates, Wilder Architecture, Bert Wagman Banks Architecture, Baker Barrios Architects, fourth. Fifth is Fletchman Garcia, Brannon and Partners at sixth. Row Architects at sixth. And then eighth place. We had Row then and then... Stratus. And then eighth is Stratus Team. And so, if you could clarify the scoring at that time, what we'll be doing. So, with the scoring. So, when we hear the questions and answers, if anything comes to light, that would be information that would affect the scoring. It can, a discussion could be made of any adjustments are needed. Is that correct? Correct. And the way that this is going to work is we're going to schedule 15 minute intervals with each of these firms. The little brief intermission in between the meetings. So, if you could clarify the scoring at that time, what we'll be doing. So, with the scoring. So, when we hear the questions and answers, if anything comes to light, that would be information that would affect the scoring. It can, a discussion could be made of any adjustments are needed. Is that correct? Correct. And the way that this is going to work is we're going to schedule 15 minute intervals with each of these firms, the little brief intermission in between each. And then, we're going to ask them their questions. And then, we're going to reconvene after all eight have been discussed. And it's just going to be between the committee, myself, and the firm. No other firms allowed to watch in on the questions that are being asked. But all those questions that are asked to one firm will remain constant with the other firms. And then, we're going to reconvene. And then, that will be the time to go through each of the firms, just like we're doing right here. We're going to go around the table. And if there was anything that was, you know, unclear, that was made clear, and you want to address the points, that would be a time to bring it up. The question and the answers, or the representations, one is required, no matter what, we have to do one. So, that's right. Question and the answers. Okay. That sounds good for you guys. Any others? So, between 8th as 95 points, and 9th, which is ASD Sky, has 94 points. So, there's a one-point spread, and then that is CPH Consulting with 92 points. Is there any reason why you want to have ASD Sky? Any other questions? Any other questions? Okay. So, I think we'll keep with 8th. Okay. 95 and up, and our top score is 104, so I feel like that's a good range. Well, my suggestion, with it just being a one-point spread, we invite ASD Sky. That's fine. Sure. Sure. If that's okay. All right. It's a recommendation. We've been fuzzy about their score. It's a recommendation. That'll be fine. Thank you very much. And so, with all that being said, that concludes our meeting for today. So, please be advised that the Quote of Silence is still in effect until the Notice of Intent to recommend a board five-day protest period ends. All questions must still be directed to me. So, thank you all for tuning in today, and there will be more to follow. Have a great weekend. Have a good night. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead.