good morning committee members and other parties of interest the final scoring meeting for rps 2626-00187 professional services for the ruskin reclaimed water and ruskin potable water pipelines 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 rogero and i'm the senior buyer for this project for the record this meeting is being reported 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 morning everyone name is justin fox i am the project manager and engineer with hillsborough county water resources i'm vincent riggio engineer intern for the design team i'm paul shadler hillsborough county water planning john watson utilities manager for hillsborough county water resources thank you the committee will evaluate and discuss the scores of the firms that were shortlisted from the previous evaluation meeting that was held after each firm is discussed please state the final consensus score agreed upon so that i may record it on the score sheet after the conclusion of the scoring i will verify the scores with the committee and provide the ranking of the proposals so what we heard i think paul you've got the scores on that the final or is that just your scores yeah these are the final decision so double check this i wrote this down from last time um for category one we had chinmore at 40 kj at 37 and mckim and creed at 41 correct okay those were the previous consensus um based on what we heard today does anybody want to modify their scoring category one am i doing this right actually okay all right i heard you inhale like uh oh my stuff all right uh so category one again was the ability of the ability of firm and it's professional firm and it's professional that's right the only thing i would move for is kj maybe the additional one or two points okay i tend to agree with you on that one they thought uh they did very well in that presentation today and i got a better feel for that pm uh on there so i would i'd be willing to take that up you know a couple points as well so that give us 39 there is a consensus if y'all are willing to live with that that's fair okay so kj we will bump up to a consensus 39 on that first one there on criteria one on criteria one chinmore was uh still at 40 and mckim still at 41 item number two what was the title on that one firm was experienced with projects of a similar size and type okay the consensus scores we have going into this chinmore was 34 kj was 34 mckim and creed was 36 correct any changes or alterations that you guys would want to see there so those stay as is those criteria two is remaining the same for all three firms criteria three was the firm as well schedule and budget yes okay schedule and budget we had seven percent more seven kj mckim at nine correct um based on what i heard today they all seemed similarly willing and able to meet that budget and showing that savings in there i agree um so yeah i would almost bring up the other two or or equalize that a little bit more what are you guys thinking on that i wouldn't be opposed to it would you move them up to nine or would you move them all to eighteen eight it doesn't matter to me i just think that uh you know what are you guys comfortable with the point spread i think is going to be pretty flat between the three on that one so however we want to do that in favor of bringing the dinner i can look with that okay so all three would end up being nine on that one so you got that one ashley and then the last one um was there what do you want research current and projecting work code thank you work good so we're looking uh we came into this with all of them being four any changes wanted there no yeah okay so actually what are our new totals then if we make no changes to that i'm going to go on criteria by criteria for each firm just to make sure we have absolutely the same scores for chen morin associates criteria one i have 40 points criteria two 34 points criteria three nine points criteria four four points zero bonus points for sbe participation three bonus points for past performance five bonus points for volume of work that brings their total to 95. the next firm is kennedy jinx consultants criteria one we changed from 37 to 39 criteria two 34 criteria three we change from seven to nine criteria four four points five bonus points for sbe participation three bonus points for past performance five bonus points for volume of work that brings their new total to 103. is everyone in agreement with those scores the committee chair will provide a memo for the meeting listing the firms in their ranking before we conclude please be reminded that the cone of silence remains in effect until the notice of intent to recommend award in the subsequent five-day protest period has ended during this time all questions or communications must be directed to me thank you everyone and this concludes the meeting