start the recording. Good afternoon committee members and other parties of interest. This discussion evaluation committee meeting for RPS 2600137 miscellaneous architecture engineering services will be held in part by 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'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 I'm Amy Jarman Capital Programs. I am an architect with the county and I also help manage the vertical constructions of the county. I am the chair. Good afternoon I'm Hannah Juthrington. I'm a business analyst with our QAQC team. Good afternoon Philip Kahn, project manager with Capital Programs. Thank you. The purpose of this meeting is to have the committee discuss the answers from the individual discussions that we held with the top nine vendors in alphabetical order and determine whether any of the scores will be revised. We will begin by verifying the scores we have recorded in the spreadsheet starting with the company ASDSKY. So for the ability of the firm and its professional personnel they had a score of 31. Firms experience with projects of similar size and type the score of 31. Firms willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements a score of 7. And effect of firm's recent current and projected workload score of 12. ASD did have the SBE bonus points of 5. Pass performance bonus points of 3. And volume of work bonus points of 5 as well. This puts their total points at 94 and their rank on this was 9th. So now we can go ahead and Amy I'm going to pass off to you and we can talk about the scores. So we can go around with that based on the recommendations we've heard today and the previous scoring. Is there any modifications over adjustments that I could discuss on those scores that the previous way have? There are no modifications I would recommend for ASD SKR. So the previous scores are confirmed. Okay. Confirm score of 94. The next firm is Baker Barrios Architects. They had a score of 29 for ability of firm and its professional personnel. 32 for criteria 2. Firms experience with projects of similar size and type. A score of 12 for criteria 3. Firms willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. And a score of 13 for criteria 4. effect of firms recent, current, and projected workload. They also scored a 5 for SBE bonus points, 3 points in past performance, and 5 for volume of work. Putting their total score of 99 and a ranking of 4. So at this time I'd like to see if there's any adjustments you have to recommend for the scores that we have previously based on the information from today and the past. I would not make the recommendations. I would not. Neither do I. So the committee confirms the previous scores. That score would be a total of 99. The next firm we're going to be discussing is Fletchman Garcia. They had for criteria 1. Ability of a firm and its professional personnel is at 31. Firms experience with projects of similar size and type of the 31. Firms willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. Score of 14. Effect of firms recent, current, and projected workload. Score of 11. And they did receive 5 for the SBE bonus points. A 5 for past performance score. And a 0 for volume of work. Putting their total score at 97 points. Which ranks them 5th. Question for any kind of recommendable adjustments to the scores that we previously discussed. Yeah, I would not make any recommendations at this stage. No. Legalize the consensus from the previous scores. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next firm we will be taking a look at is Firm, Wegman, and Banks Architects. For criteria 1, they had scored a 32. Ability of its firm and its professional personnel. Criteria 2. Score of 34. Which is the firm's experience with projects of similar size and type. For criteria 3, they scored a 13. Which is the firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. And for criteria 4, they scored in 11. Which is the effect of firm's recent, current, and projected workload. They did receive 5 for SBE bonus points. 5 points for past performance. And 3 for volume of work. Putting their grand total at 103 points and a rank of 3. This time I'd like to enable committee members to make recommendations from the adjustments that we needed. Okay. The next firm we'll be taking a look at is Long and Associates. They had a score of 33 for ability of firm and its professional personnel. Score of 35 for the firm's experience with projects of similar size and type. Score of 14 for firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. And a score of 13 for the firm's recent current projected workload. They did score a 5 for the SBE bonus points. 4 for past performance. But 0 for volume of work. And this puts their rank at number 1 with a grand total of 104 points. This time I'd like to open up to the committee to see if there's any adjustments that we recommend based on the information received. I don't have any adjustments. Neither do I. The committee confirms confirmation of the previous scores. Thank you. The next firm we're going to be taking a look at is Renan and Partners. Criteria 1 was a 31 points for ability of firm and its professional personnel. 33 points for criteria 2, firm's experience with projects of similar size and time. Criteria 3 of 11 points, firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. And criteria number 4 was at 11 points as well for effective firms' recent, current, and projected workload. Now they did receive 5 for SBE bonus points, 5 for past performance, and 0 for volume of work. And this ranked them 7th. And in this case, we had a grand total of 96 points, which is a, we had to do a tiebreaker for row architects as well, because they also had 96 points. Now, given the fact that we did go through the tiebreaker procedure that we have for the county, professional firm, we have four different steps of how we go ahead and do a tiebreaker. Number one is if the firm submitted the signed drug-free workplace form with their proposal, in this case, none of these firms did. So we're going to move on to number two, a firm that has the lowest total dollars of work over the last two fiscal years. In this case, neither of these firms have had any work in the last two fiscal years. So we had to go down to tiebreaker number three, which is the firm that received the most points and the highest weighted evaluation criteria. And so in this case, that's going to be criteria number two, which has a total of 36 points. It's the firm's experience with projects of similar size and type. And in this case, Renan and partners had a 33, while row architects had a 32. Sorry. And I think what the issue is, is the volume of work because Renan has occurred, they have volume of work. I think that's available. I'm sorry. I'm mixing up the tiebreakers. So for the record, yes, we did have to go to row architects. They had five for volume of work. Well, Renan and partners had a zero. So going into tiebreaker number two there, where I had the lowest dollars of work over the last two fiscal years, Renan is seventh and row would be sixth place. Although their total scores are equal going through the tiebreaker procedure. Thanks for correcting me on that one. So given all of that, we can go ahead and see if any of the scores would be adjusted. Okay. So with we're on the room, we're still on, we're not. Oh, Renan. Yeah. Do we have any adjustments recommended on that based on that information? I do not. I do not either. So we confirm the scores and the ranking. That's okay. Confirmation. Okay. Thank you. Next firm we're going to be talking about is row architects. In this case, they have 31 points for ability of its firm, professional personnel, 32 points for the firm's experience with projects of similar size and type, 10 points for firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements and 10 points for their firm's recent current and projected workload. They did receive five for the SBE bonus points, three for past performance, and then five for volume of work, putting their grand total at 96 points and a rank of six. So again, I just wanted to reiterate row architects as a ranking of six due to the fact that they had a higher score of volume of work, also known as the lowest total dollars amount over the last two fiscal years, over or not. This time I'd like to open up to the committee members and then recommended modifications based on information we have. Okay. So the committee confirms the previous work. Thank you. The next firm we're going to be taking a look at is Stratus team. Criteria one, which is the ability of a firm and its professional personnel, has a score of 30. Criteria two, experience with projects of similar size and type, was also a 30. Criteria three, firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements, was a score of an 11, as well as criteria four, effective firm's recent current projected workload, which had a score of 11. In this case, they did receive the five SBE bonus points. They had a past performance score of three and a volume of work score of five, putting their grand total at 95 points and a rank of eight. So at this time, I'd like to open it up to the committee to see if adjustments are recommended based on the information. Thank you. So as a consensus, we confirm the prior scores. Thank you. And the ninth and final firm that we spoke to is Wilder Architecture. They had a score of 32 for criteria one, which was the ability of its firm and professional personnel. They had a score of 35 for their experience with projects of similar size and type, a score of 14 with the firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements, and a score of 13 for the firm's recent current projected workload. They did receive the five SBE bonus points, as well as the five for past performance score, but zero points for volume of work. This puts their total points at 104, which gives them a rank of two. In this case, they also tied with Long and Associates for the total amount of points. But looking into the tiebreaker, we're going and skipping over the drug-free workplace as none of the firms submitted that with their proposal. So we're looking at the lowest total dollar amount over the last two fiscal years. So for Wilder, in this case, they had $6,637,187.09 worth of work. And Long and Associates had $1,452,215.92 of volume of work over the last two fiscal years. So that's just the tiebreaker that we did. And you will all see, once we conclude today, the notice of to recommend award, you can see all the scores and it would be, you know, as a spreadsheet. So I can pass that on. Sounds good. At this time, I'd like to open it up to the community to see if you have any recommended adjustments that you stop the promotion. So at this time, the committee has a consensus, but I think we're in engagement with the scores. Okay, perfect. So in this case, if the committee has decided there's no changes to the evaluation scores at this time, would you want to make a motion to move forth with how many of the highest ranked firms? Yeah, I would like to make that motion for your consideration. I think we could make a motion to have the top seven firms. That would be Long Associates, Wilder, Per-Legman, Baker-Varius, Pleasure Garcia, Roe, and Rignon for your consideration discussion. Okay. I like that. You agree with it. All right. So at that time, that would be your recommendation. All right. Perfect. Thanks, Amy. So that concludes our meeting today. Please be advised that the cone of silence is still in effect until the notice of intent to recommend award. Five-day protest period ends. So until that period ends, all questions still must be directed through me through procurement. All right. Well, thank you very much and have a great day. Thank you.