The final scoring 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 the 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'm the senior buyer for this project. For the record, this meeting is being recorded and has been publicly noticed. Ashley, sorry to interrupt. It's very, it's very dark and I'm unable to see the attendees. Sorry. Can you open up some of the blinds or something? Yeah. Thank you. Okay, that's good. That's good. Yeah, because if they start providing their information, we wouldn't be able to see who they were. Thank you. Thank you, Janet. At this time, I'll ask each committee member to introduce themselves for the record, beginning with the committee chair. Dana Mackey, Hillsborough County Section Manager. I'm Gilbert, the Big Program Manager, who spoke of. Jeremy Lussey, Hillsborough County Project Bridge Engineer. I'm sorry, Ashley, it's still really dark. Can you just see if maybe the lights are on? Are all the lights on? Because it looks like there's some of them are dark. No, they're all on. That's really dark still. Test the lights one time for me, please. There we go. Now you got it. Thank you. The committee will evaluate and discuss the scores of the firms that were shortlisted from the previous evaluation meeting. After each firm is discussed, please state the final consensus score agreed upon so that it 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 proposals. So we will go round table. We are going to start with Ayers Associates, Inc. Jay, are you comfortable with the scores given or any changes needed based off the discussions? So I think I'm very satisfied with the contract, you know, concerning the contract manager response and his commitment for this contract. And I propose addition of one point based on the response, which is here. Is this for criteria one? Oh, are we going for each individual? I'm going for criteria three, actually the third. Oh, you're talking about based on this one? Okay. That would be from professional. The point three on three, I think we gave them eight, three questions that were asked. So yeah, I think I was based on the questions, three questions which we asked. Okay. But we have to specifically under risk criteria. Yeah. So I think I'm willingness and ability to meet schedules and budget requirement. Um, as far as the scoring, I mean, I can concur with Jade based on the additional information that we gather from the questions. I agree. I second probably everything Jay said. The additional point, I agree with that as well. So the consensus is to change criteria three from 20 to 21? Yes. Yes. Okay. And that brings the total to 92. The next firm is Bogart. Okay. Um, I, I'm, uh, satisfied with the contract manager response. Uh, I had some concern, but, uh, there's a personal, uh, commitment was given and, uh, based on the responses, I think, um, whatever the number we gave, we are okay with that. Okay. Dana, for Bogart, um, based on their responses, I'm okay with keeping the score the same. Me too. I, I also agree. Keep score the same. Okay. So Bogart will, will remain at 91. The next one is T Y Lynn International. Uh, I like to add one point on T Y Lynn too, because the way, you know, they especially very well response about, uh, like whatever concern we raised, uh, during the project, they, you know, react to it and they make some changes accordingly. And they did mention in their interview, you know, when we interviewed that based on the country, you know, follow ups. So I'm very satisfied with that response and I would like to add one more point. Thank you. Um, again, based on the responses to the questions, I'm okay with adding another point. I would say another two points. No point, yeah. Yeah. For me. I have, I have done, uh, an additional one point based on them, what they recommend or what they, how they responded to the questions. So what do, do, right? So, do you say one? I said one, you said one, you said two. I'm okay with two. You can. Two. And which category, which criteria you'd like to add that to? Do y'all guys agree to that? Um, I, I was going with the, the first criteria, you know, ability to forms and professional personnel. What do you think? Yeah, I'll stay with that one. We can add one on that one. I mean, yeah, I was going to say one on the first one and one on the third. Yeah, I think that, okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That will be nice. Yeah. Yeah. I agree on that. Yes. So criteria one will change to 41 points and criteria three will change to 19 points. That gives them a new total of 91. The next one is DRMP Inc. Okay. Oh, based on their, you know, last interview responses. Uh, I think whatever the numbers we gave is suffice to me. Um, I'm satisfied with the, you know, the new contact manager proposed for DRMP experience and, uh, I'm okay with what are the number we gave to them. Yeah. Um, just the same. Keep the score the same. So DRMP will remain at 86. The next one is CDM Smith. Yes. Uh, we learned, you know, quite surprised that the main contact manager was being replaced with the deputy. Um, we, our, we always like our private consultant to be as, you know, main person for the contact. And, uh, even though in this case, the, the subconsultant looks more, you know, like more stronger than the Frank consultant, in my opinion, uh, initially I thought that, you know, it could be big impact, but the CORI has an equivalent good experience too. We work on the county projects. So I will continue with whatever the numbers we gave it to them before. So I'm not proposing any deduction because of the change. Okay. Goals to keep the score the same. Same. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Same. I agree. So CDM Smith scores will remain the same at 87. And then the last one is Patel Green and Associates. Um, Patel Green and Associates, uh, I think they are satisfied with all the, you know, all the responses. They answer very well. They convince us that, uh, they have all the rules, uh, for all of our project and manpower. Uh, I propose one addition of one point with their response, what their responses. And I'm proposing under the, uh, number three, firm's willingness and ability to meet budget. They did mention that, you know, in county past project, uh, they didn't care about the budget. You know, they just wanted to finish the project. So that was, you know, good example they set. Yeah. Um, I'm okay with that, um, with adding a point in that category. I was just looking at my notes, but yeah. Yeah. They talk about no surprises along the way how they're gonna manage budget schedule. Yeah. I'm good with that. I'd actually proposed two points, uh, one and with the ability of the firm to do the work and one meet schedule and budget. Um, but other than that, I, I agree with what you both said. I think one would be one, one, two, one is for one. Yeah. So in category three. Three. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So in category three, we'll go from 18 to 19. Mm-hmm. That brings it forward to 91. And just to confirm all the final scores, we have Ayers Associates Inc. at 92, Volcker Inc. at 91, C.Y. Lynn International at 91, DRMP Inc. at 86, CDM Smith at 87, and Patel Green and Associates at 91. Everyone agree with those scores? Yes. And you're going to do the memo. Yeah. I will do the memo. Okay. Um, please be advised that the cone of silence is still in effect until notice of intent to recommend award five-day protest period ends and all questions must be directed to me, um, through Yuna or email. Thank you everyone for your time. I hope everyone has a wonderful day.