and other parties of interest, the Evaluation Committee meeting for RPS 26-00175 Bridge Professional Engineering Services contract will be held in part by means of communications media technology. Active participation will be for committee members only. Provisions have been made for any member of the public desiring to have access to view the meeting. My name is Ashley Ruggiero and I am the senior buyer for this project. For the record, this meeting is being recorded and has been publicly noticed. At this time, I will ask each committee member to introduce themselves for the record, beginning with the committee chair. My name is Dana Mackey, section director for the Infrastructure Engineering Services Department at Public Works. Good morning all. My name is Jay Wett. I'm the police program manager at Hesburgh County. Jeremy Lusky, Hillsborough County Bridge Engineer. Thank you, O'Neill. We also have another guest from Procurement Services. Christopher Arles, senior buyer. Thank you. 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 in the solicitation and not any prior experience with the firm. The proposals will be scored based on the following criteria. Ability of the firm and its professional personnel. Firms' experience with projects of similar size and type. Firms' willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. Effective firm's recent, current, and projected workload. The evaluation committee chair, Dana Mackey, will lead the discussion for the scoring. After each category is discussed, please state the final consensus score agreed upon so that I may record it in the score sheet. After the conclusion of the scoring, I will verify the scores with the committee and provide the ranking of their proposals. Dana, I turn it over to you. Dana Mackey, Okay. Thank you, Maeve. What I'd like to do, we'll start out with doing the scoring based, we'll start in alphabetical order, if that's okay, the different firms, and then we'll just have a general discussion as far as our scores, the four categories. So, with that being said, we'll start out with, oh, I'm sorry, Atkins, Rubens. My first category is ability of the firm and its professional personnel. I guess we can go clockwise if that's okay with everybody. I mean, we can start with number one and just share our scores. 30, all four scores? No, no, no, we'll start with number one. Atkins, Atkins, 30. Okay. Okay, so Atkins, I gave, what I want to say that, you know, the projecting covers most of the discipline. It would have been nice if the urbanization chart have more details for the easier understanding. Prime contact BM experience is satisfactory, but most of the DOT type projects, I think the overall, the proposal is average, so I give them a rank of 36. I think I gave them, um, that their experience and some of the resumes didn't keep on a lot of projects of similar type and size. I gave them a score of 32 at that. What consensus score would you like to come see? So we have, right now we have 32, 30, 36, so we need to... I think we can say 33, right? 33. Or 33. It doesn't matter. Yeah. Is that okay? You can do 33? Yeah. We'll give 33 as a consensus score. 33 as a consensus score. 33 as a consensus score. 33 as a consensus score. 33 as a consensus score. 34. Okay. Please make sure you're on mute. If you're on mute, it's here on mute. Okay. Next category is the firm's experience with projects of a similar size and type. Number two, um, start with one 16 doing very similar roles for Sarasota county and Hillsborough strong water dot central office district 7 city of tampa so they're already there so right each of us no we're still doing that for the second one yeah yeah sorry one of the 16. i'm uh overall satisfied with the bridge project list uh indication of specially this visibility project so i give them 18. i gave them a 15. they had a lot of i mean they had some bridge type but they mentioned a lot of drainage projects and well i gave them support 15. so 15 16 and 18 18. 16 yeah yeah 16. right okay yeah okay the third category is firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements still talking about atkins realist can we 18 they would seem to have a good understanding okay jay yeah uh i i think you know i'm not like it's like not seen any specialty efforts on the right of which gives me confidence that they you know yeah i i understand that all you know it is with all that they have an understanding about schedule and budget and importance but it did not convince me for the like you know they have some speciality right of return so i give them a 16. okay and on that one i gave them an 18 about 18. i can go with 18. that's fine you guys okay with 18. yeah okay 18. okay all right the next category affect the firm's recent current and projected workload that's jeremy i went with a three it looked like they had some mixed availability looked like they had quite a few that were less than half available um and some of the keys some of the higher some of the key staff so it was i just kind of one of the three i i you know with the same reason we jeremy just mentioned you know some of the key personnel has a little bit higher usage so four i knew them and i gave them a three i noticed that they said 100 staff will be able to start them alive until december of 2026. um i gave them three so i'm going to go with um three yeah i put my three so i would just go with three okay just to recap the scores we have 33 points for criteria number one ability of firm and its professional personnel 16 for firms experience with projects of a similar size and type 18 firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements and three for effective firms recent current and projected workload yes that brings them to a total score of 70. they do have five points for small business bonus points and five um points bonus points for past performance zero points for volume of work it brings their total score to 80. okay all right next next firm is aires and associates okay we'll start out the same thing first category ability to firm and it's professional personnel sport i'm only about 30 again uh they've been doing very similar work that's very similar capacity lots of those same type size and type of bridges uh i uh give them uh let me give them any because uh first of all i'm satisfied with them deep personal uh experience and uh you know their list on project with their resume i'm very satisfied with the uh contact manager and deputy pm um for this contract um the key advantage that they have a large school of cbis and ceis which is you know we know that we need that constant services uh support this contract so i give them a high ranking of uh 41. okay i um i was looking at their pretty much their experience and um they seem like they of course they had a very good um perspective of what the county needs are and goals um they also mentioned some other things like um uh grant funding and public engagement all those different things that are also important to the scope um i gave them a score of 44 okay so who are high so 44 41 41. yeah 41. that's one i had a 30 but that's oh wow yeah no no no experience it's like everybody has their own way of okay so it's fine but the reason you know just to give you that the main thing is who is our contract manager right now who is the deputy contact manager that will help that's why it gives us and you look at their experience and then you stop but i'm comfortable okay so what do you want to go with um 44 41 30 what do you want to do 42 41 41 42 i think let's go for 44 42 42 okay 42 okay next category um firm experience with projects of a similar size and type jeremy what's your score i went with a 16. uh they've done a lot of similar size projects and a lot of similar size designs um okay uh i think uh i think that their project is demonstrate the very wide variety of different contracts uh you know they also mentioned about the single master example for the study project uh so i gave them 18. we matched i gave them 18 as well um but they did present you know a variety of different types of structural type contracts that they've been involved in i also had a lot of the mass arm inspection services um some miscellaneous services contracts and some special standalone bridges so i gave them an 18. but 18 18 18. all right next category terms willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements jeremy i was 15. actually you know what let me let me raise that up to an 18. we'll go with 19. i have no concerns uh with their ability to uh so i'm satisfied with that proposal which describes how they control the cost using the software um they mentioned that pm gets every weekly report about the expense uh and also you know satisfactory satisfy with their scheduling understanding understanding so i give them uh 20. okay i gave them some of the same things that jamin i gave them a score 21 21 20 18. everyone go with 21 20 20 20 20 okay in uh category number four affect the firm's recent current projected workload jeremy have a four where they seem to have very good availability i give them a four and i give them a four that's an easy one agreed on something so just to recap the scoring criteria number one ability of firm and its professional personnel of 42 firms experience with projects of a similar size and type 18 firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements of 20 effective firm's recent current and projected workload of four they do have five bonus points for sbe participation two bonus points for past performance and zero bonus points for volume of work and that brings their total to 91. okay all right all right next firm bcc engineering i went with a uh 30 on that um seemed like a there seemed like a lot of uh subs and maybe some more junior staff on this one that uh gave me a little pause but uh i i think they have enough senior staff to do the work or to provide guidance okay thank you very much uh bcc i think project team covers most of discipline um they have 12 subs um i think the chart of organization charge uh was well organized and it shows that the grid inspection and scour analysis is through their subs which is kind of a very important you know uh for us uh so prime concern is not doing you know they're showing the scour by their subs um i like the mention about the grant writing uh and also they listed the most testing firms uh on their proposal uh as their sub but you know that's understandable so i give them a score of 35 um that was kind of opposite that was because they were using a lot of subs um not the main team um i gave them a score 35 even though they did have a lot of support funding the suck um it's all yeah very various um you know um different things that they could provide but it's i feel like it's sometimes challenging to manage a lot of jobs when the world is well it's not something directly only from you you know the product yeah so that's why i gave them scores right yeah i mean see the you know this thing not mdt right there's always a third party you know like i mean yeah yeah but uh you know especially cei or cvi we want the prime to be you know involved yes yeah i'm one of them so yeah i agree no i'm okay with the 35. yeah i agree 35. yeah next category two um firms experience with projects of a similar size and type along vcc engineering i went with uh 12 they showed a varied amount of projects shown but they were either much larger or or much smaller uh than expected and only the seawall would there was a seawall project was the only other one that had miscellaneous structures um and a structure designer inspection shown so that was that was why i thought about that yeah uh they have you know they showed that variety of bleach design and construction projects but no indication of i think uh signal pool repairs or investment project or study projects so i give i give them a 16. and i gave them a score of 15. we did mention you know about sea walls um in some projects about we have a painting bridge properties but i gave them 15 overall for that category too so we have 15 16 12. so we want to go with a 15. yeah okay this one okay 15. next category three firms willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements still see engineering jeremy i went with uh 18. i didn't have any concerns about what they were listing instead of abilities to meet schedule and budget uh i give them also 18 because very shown of course they you know mention about the schedule and how they will control budget control it but they also kind of uh gone into detail about the permitting you know time challenges and you know they understand the constructions uh mention about the construction how the construction schedule can be impact on the overall project schedule so uh look like they have good understanding you know at least convince me about the schedule understanding so i gave them 18. i had some other comments jay i gave them a score of 19. in this category i felt like they had a good strategy um scheduling a budget control both they've mentioned design design and construction phases so um i gave them score of 19. so 19 to 18 18 18. so 18 is an average 18. okay um next category effective firms recent current and projected workload category four jeremy i went with a three i looked like the majority of the staff showing us the 50 availability of jay i gave them a four okay and i gave them three well staff average was about 50 percent available in score three so we've got two threes and a four what are we going to do that to recap we have four criteria number one ability of firm and its professional personnel a 35 firm's experience with projects of a similar size and type 15 firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements 18. effective firm's recent current and projected workload of three they do have bonus points of five bonus points for sbe participation three bonus points for past performance five bonus points for volume of work and that brings their grand total 284. okay next firm cdm smith category one ability of the firm is professional personnel i went with a score of 30. it seemed uh some of the key staff didn't appear to be local which which could cause a bit of an issue sometimes occasionally okay jenny uh i think project team overall contains all the necessary discipline and uh they provide the uh i mean professional resources to um better the county needs uh especially in terms of ceis uh both crime pm and deputy pm work on the county projects uh in the you know shows in the resume resume and with our county contract uh one of their sub wsp usc is uh you know don't uh is one of their sub uh known for that mobile bridges and seawall uh we just make sure okay so on on the score of this thing i be i gave them 40. okay and i mentioned some of the same things that jay had also did talk about following their commitment to meeting sbe participation goals um team had pretty good experience with the county and dot projects um i gave them score 38. we have 38 40. i did a 16. my only concern is most of the projects uh represent or represent the right size but they were all uh not out of state yeah um yeah they didn't mention some of the orange county master inspection uh seawall uh but yeah you know a couple of bridge projects similar size but out of state uh i gave them 18. i gave them 18 as well i mean they have done some projects in hillary county medial drive bridge replacement um they work on the ftft district 7 tec contract so they have done some things here locally um they also wanted a big thing to talk about mentioned stormwater and seawall inventory they have a lot of that reading seawall inventory so that kind of stood out to me and they mentioned about the grant support um you know so i gave them the score 18. 18 18 18. in next category three firm's willingness and ability to be scheduled on budget requirements sheriff i had a 15 and i thought they had a good understanding of what we needed okay you know right yeah for uh so schedule and i think they uh they gave a good understanding about schedule and how important it is they mentioned that how they're going to put unit with their sub so they understand that subs are sometimes challenging to you know even though the prime is available subs are sometimes they are on you know in contact with multiple firms so they you know get them on schedule is a little challenging so they did mention about how they really make sure with their sub so um i give them a score of uh 20. okay i gave them a score of 18. um they did concentrate a lot on this category about when you talk about schedules and budget about the construction side so like and good to also mention about the project development design management side of things i know they have a strong background construction um related to bridges i gave them a score of 18 or 18. or 18. so 18. 18 18. last category number four expect the firm's recent current and projected workload workload workload workload workload workload workload workload workload workload workload workload workload To recap the scores for CDM Smith, criteria number one, ability of firm and its professional personnel, 38, firms experience with projects of a similar size and type, 18, firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements, 18, effective firm's recent, current, and projected workload, 4. They did earn 5 bonus points for SBE participation, 3 bonus points for past performance, and 1 bonus point for volume of work. That gives them a total of 87. Next firm, DRMP, with the first category, ability of firm and its professional personnel. Jeremy? I thought it looked like they had a good group with a good support set of subs. I did a value of 35. Thanks, James. My notes. Project team personnel have above average experience for needs. The project manager is uniquely qualified. When I say project manager means contact manager. Their organization is not that detailed like others. I wish they have done a little bit more information on organizational charts, which leads you to understand how the whole team planning to execute this contract. Correct. The contract does not include any sub for the non-distractive testing services. So I gave them, I gave them a 36. I gave them a 33. I gave them a 33. They did mention, I mean, they're trying to, they're familiar with, you know, the movement towards agile assets. They're one of the only ones I can kind of mention that, that understand the Hildred County and where we're going. Um, anyway, I gave them, I felt like the project manager has a lot of experience as well. Um, I think the score 33, so 33, 36. 35. 35. 36. 35. 35. Right on category two. 35 on category two, from experience with projects about yourself, size and type. Jeremy. I went with a 20. Seem like they had a good sampling of representative projects about this size. And I also want to get 20, so, you know, . 20. 20. 20. Yeah. Everybody said 20. Just want to make sure. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Next category three. Brown's willingness and ability to schedule and budget. 18. Thought they had a good understanding of what we needed and the ability to work with us. I went with 17 because they are not specifically details about how they're going to control costs, you know, general subgeneral discussion, but not something which they're specifically, you know, demonstrating where we see some efforts about cost. I gave them an 18. They did mention about the structability reviews and buildability requirements, which is also critical. They talked about, you know, tracking projects between the different phases. 30, 60, and 90. I think they were one of the only ones that mentioned that. But I gave them 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. So 18. And category on four, affect the firm's recent current projected workload. Jeremy. I have four. Let's see what they have good availability. Four. I have four as well. To recap, criteria one, ability of firm and its professional personnel. 35. Firms experienced with projects of a similar size and type. 20 firms willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements 18 affect a firm's recent current and projected workload for they did have five bonus points for sve participation four bonus points for past performance and zero bonus points for volume of work that brings their total to 86. okay next firm gm2 engineering associates first category ability firmness professional personnel jeremy i gave a score of 30. uh my only concern was some key staff seem to be come out of state i gave them 34. um the reasons is that uh as jeremy mentioned you know key staff is out of state not only that they're you know their organization's chart is uh satisfactory not so great uh and also their uh course kind of project team personnel have a very well of experience with the similar side you know with their list of projects each uh when i compare what type of projects so that's why i'm giving them 34. okay i gave them a score of 30. uh i thought i had a minimum discussion of minimum minimum discussion of project approach and understanding the scope i gave them 30. so we had 30 30 34. so 30. so 30 over 30. so we have glory experience of the project with summer side and tight with gmt engineering number two i went with a 16 they showed a variety of projects shown but there a lot of them were larger than expected uh miss uh the miscellaneous structures uh designed but no inspection was highlighted there yeah i gave them 18. some of the examples noted for uh for the papers they did mention about the signal board project overall i'm satisfied so give them 18. okay yeah i gave them a 17 17. talk about yeah 17. yeah it is uh 16 7 17 18 so 17 17 that's just a score okay three category three firms willingness and ability to get the ability to be scheduling budget and ability to be scheduling budget and 18. i think it was 17. i felt the same but i gave them 17 17 17 into 18. so we'll go 18. i think the last category is the effect of the firm's recent current i think the overflowed so talking about gmt gm2 engineering associates with a four category four uh three it seemed like it has a mix availability i can project it out i also agree i have a three as well exactly to recap for gm2 engineering associates inc criteria one ability of firm as congressional personnel 30 firms experience with projects of a similar size and type 17. firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule budget requirements 18 affected firm's recent current and projected workload three they did have five bonus points for sbe participation three bonus points for past performance and five bonus points for volume of work that brings their total to 81. okay next firm hw lockner first category ability of firm and its professional personnel i had 25 it seemed uh largely younger engineers i didn't see any signal pole inspection represented there i give them a 36 the you know yeah project team contains the most necessary discipline um satisfied with the contract pm experience uh i think they're gonna organizational chart does not show about the c will repair cover must-up category uh they did mention something different for the signal pole and uh in the resume also they mentioned but not on the organizational chart so i give them 36. i gave them 36. i gave them 36 as well some of the comments of j that's fine okay 36. that's fine 36 category two from experience with project on the similar size and type within 18 show the variety projects shown um so yeah it looked like they had a wide variety of projects shown they seemed like they could do just about whatever we need i gave them 16 because most of their projects represent a capital standalone kind of a project not like i don't want contract maintenance uh so i went with the 16. okay i went with the 16 as well because it was more like you said jay more capital type probably um 16 16 16 16 16 16 from now in category three firms willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements jeremy's still talking about hw lockner wow i went with the 18. it seemed like they had a i didn't have any concerns over what their plan okay i also have 18. okay i also have 18 as well easy okay then we have last category effective from the recent current projected workload based up in i had a four i had a four they have been available for four i have four as well three kept scores for hw lockner criteria one ability of firm and its professional personnel 36 firms experience with projects of a similar size and type 16 firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule budget requirements 18 effective firms recent current and projected workload four they have five bonus points for sve participation two bonus points for past performance zero bonus points for volume of work and that brings their total to 81. okay next firm hntv first category ability of farming is professional personnel pretty seem like they had a good team and it's pretty covered uh so their project team contains the most necessary discipline um the inspection services will be done by the sub um it shows uh cei availability uh to crime um also positive thing about the grant application they mentioned uh assistant so i give them a score of 36 35 35 35 35 35 and next category two from experience with projects to symbol of size and type hear me i did an 18. uh i the 11 bridges project in collier county i thought was a good example one that good uh parallel to what we're gonna need as well okay jay thank you that was 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17. okay category three firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements and 18 what they had the plan i thought would meet our needs our ability to work with us okay jay um yeah they uh they have generalized i mentioned about their how they controlling the budget and scheduling um there was no data provided which back that you know that they really you know got really working on you know how they some kind of example which uh at the state that what we are saying is right uh so with that those reasons um i this is for the hmtb yeah hntb uh i gave that one 18. okay i gave them a score uh coaching um four four four four four four four six four four five five four they do have other work okay okay okay um to read number five four four four four zero four eight four four four four four five Absolutely. The last one. You've got to love it. True. That came out four. That's one. You want to do it five? Four is five. Four is the FSI. Four. They do have other markets. Okay. Okay. To recap for HMTV. Criterion one, ability of firmness, professional personnel, 35. Firms experience with projects of similar size and type, 17. Firms willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements, 18. Effective Firms recent, current and projected workload for. It did earn five bonus points for SBE participation. Three bonus points for past performance. Zero bonus points for volume of work. And that brings their total to 82. Okay. Next firm. Kissinger Campo and Associates, better known as KCA. Category one, ability to firmness, professional personnel. Jeremy. I gave a 30. They have a team that looks experienced and balanced. Okay. Jay. I gave them a 36. They have not mentioned anything about NTT testing, how they're going to do. I think most of the project team contains the, you know, necessary discipline experience. I'm satisfied with the proposed PM experience. So far, those are in I gave them a 36. I gave them a 35. 35, 36. 30. 35. 35. 35. Okay. Next category two, firm's experience with projects of similar size and type. Jeremy. 18. They have a good experience with a lot of similar projects. Oh yeah. Demonstration of the good police projects for repairs and replacement. No indication of signal project. So I give them a 17. Okay. I gave them a 17. 17. 17. 17. 17. 17. 8. Category three, firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. 18. I think you have a reasonable plan and the ability to negotiate. Yeah. I think there's something to be satisfactory, describing the importance of the budget control, not backed by any example. They could have a committee projects. So I gave them a, I give them a 18. I gave them a 17. 17. 18. 18. 18. So 18. 8. And there's a number of four. I think the firm's recent current project that work alone. I had a four. And the higher ability. I also give them a four. I give them a four as well. So that's a four. To recap, for Kassinger, Campo and Associates Corps, KCA. criteria one ability of firm as professional personnel of 35 firms experience with projects of a similar size and type 17 firms willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements 18 effective firms recent current and projected workload for they did earn five. They earn five bonus points for SBE participation, three bonus points for past performance, zero bonus points for volume of work. And that brings their total to 82. Okay. Next firm, Patel Green and Associates. First category, ability of firm and professional personnel. I did a 35. I thought they had a very high level team, diverse subs, and they had some extra specialties with some of the codings and some of the origin subs. Okay. Jay? I gave them a 38. They also, you know, nicely include the title search company, which is, you know, we require. I'm satisfied with the proposed contact manager experience and this project is so. Okay. I gave them a 38 as well. I'm going to set J at 38, 38. 35. 35. 35. 37. 37. 37. Okay. Next category two firms experience with projects of some size and type. I gave them 18. My only concern is doing the same task with group for District 7 at the same time as our projects. Okay. Jay? I'm satisfied with the BGNC project list. No signal must not project mentioned in that example. I gave them 17. And I also gave them a score of 18. 18. What, 18? 18. No. Sorry, 18. Eric had worried about firm willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. I had an 18. Okay. I don't, good plan. I didn't see any concerns. Okay. Yeah. They've shown satisfactory, describing, understanding about, you know, the budget control and schedule. Again, no specific data provided. I gave them 18. Okay. 18 as well. 18, 18? 18. 18. 18 is it. All right. Then last category four, effective firms, recent, current, or projected foreclose. I did a three, seeing they had some pretty mixed availability. Can I give them a four? I gave them a four. Four. Four. Four. Four. For Patel Green and Associates, criteria one, ability of firm and its professional personnel, 37. Firms experienced with projects of a similar size and type. 18. Firms willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. 18. Effective firm's recent, current, and projected workload. Four. They did earn five bonus points for SBE participation. Three bonus points for past performance. Five bonus points for volume of work. And that brings their total to 90. How much? 90. 19. Okay. Next firm, TYLN International. First category, ability of firm and its professional personnel. Jeremy. We had 30. Good. It seemed like a good balance team. Okay. Okay. I give them a 14. Projecting personnel have exceptional, you know, good level, exceptional level of experience with the county projects, listing their resume. Projecting condense most necessary discipline. One concern is that about their, no, okay, sorry. And I'm very satisfied with the contact manager and deputy PMs on the contract and their experience. For those days, and I give them 40. I gave them a 41. Some of the comments they're doing. I gave them a 41. 41. I know they've had some, a lot of the county experience with, you know, that they've shown their proposal. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. Category two, firms experience with projects of a similar size and type. 18. I thought they had good experience with similar projects. 20. With them, these don't project mention. And so I give them 20. I gave them a 20 as well. So 20. 20. 20. 20. 20. Okay. Category three, firms willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. I had 18. They had a good understanding. I didn't have any concerns over their plan. Okay. I gave them a 17. 18. 18. 17. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. And then the last category is effective for the recent current project to workload. them. Three. 18. 18. 19 SBE participation, two bonus points for past performance, zero bonus points for volume of work. That brings their total to 89. Okay, last firm, Volker Inc. First category, ability to firm as professional personnel. I did a 35 high level team, diverse subs with some of the extra specialties that had the cover of the corrosion and the covenants as well. I gave them a 38, they, you know, I'm satisfied with the contract manager experience. They have a good pull of CBICIs in house and they cover most of the disciplines. I gave them a 38 as well. Some of the comments that we already mentioned. We have 38, 38. 35, 37, 38 is fine. 37, 37? Yeah. Category two, firms experience with projects that was the most size and type. Jeremy? Over the 20, they have good experience with very similar projects and, yeah. Okay. Jay? Do not go to list of brief projects, no indication of signal for repairs replacement project. For those reasons, I give them 18. I gave them an 18 as well. 18, 18. I had 20, but 18 is fine. I had 20. No, 18 is fine. 18 is fine. 18 is fine. Sure. Yeah. 18. Okay. And third category is firms willingness and ability to be scheduled on budget requirements. Jeremy? I had 18. I had 18. I had a good plan and no concerns. I have them 20. I also have them at 20. I also have them at 20. It's 20, 20? 18. 27. 20. Okay. Last category. Number four, affect the firm's recent, current, and protected workload. Jeremy? I had four and high availability for support. Jay? And I have four. Okay. To recap for Volcker Inc. Criteria one, ability of firm and its professional personnel. 37. Firms' experience with projects of a similar size and provides 18. Firms' willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. 20. Effective firm's recent, current, and projected workload. 4. They did receive five bonus points for SBE participation. 2 bonus points for past performance. 5 bonus points for volume of work. And that brings their grand total to 91. So, I would like to recap just the total scores with you guys, if that's okay? Yes. Okay. For Atkins-Realis, I have 80. For Ayers Associates, I have 91. BCC Engineering, I have 84. CDM-Smith, I have 87. Sorry, mine's just out of order from your guys. Should I go now? I'll be medical. DRMP, I have 86. GM2 Engineering Associates, I have 81. Kissinger Combo Associates Corp, I have 82. 4. HNTB, 82. HW Lockner, 81. HW Lockner, 81. Till Green and Associates, 90. T.Y. Lin International, 89. And Bulkert, 91. Is everyone in agreement with those scores? Yeah, I'm missing one. Which one? I'm missing one. I'm missing one. HNTB. What was HNTB? 82. 82? Yeah, I think you guys were in agreement with those scores, yes. Okay. The Chair will provide the committee memo. Please be advised that the cone of silence is still in effect until the Notice of Intent to Recommend Award five-day period protest has ended. All questions must be directed to me, Ashley Ruggiero and Procurement. At this time, I will stop the recording.