Good morning committee members and other parties of interest. The evaluation committee meeting for RPS 26-00187 professional services for the Ruskin reclaimed water and Ruskin potable water pipeline design 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. At this time, I will ask each committee member to introduce themselves for the record, beginning with the committee chair. Hi, good morning. My name is Justin Fox. I am an engineer and project manager with Water Resources. I'm Paul Shadler. I work for the department in the planning section. Vincent Riccio. I am a design engineer for the Water Resource Department. Good morning, John Watson. I'm a utilities manager for the Water Resources Infrastructure Maintenance Division. 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, Justin Fox, 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 the proposals. Justin, I turn it over to you. Thank you, Ashley. Mitty, appreciate your time and looking at all these as we were going through there. So we are going to take these in alphabetical order just because that's the most logical to me. And so we're going to start with Chen Moore as our first up in here. And we're going to confine our first discussion to number A1, which is ability of firm and its professional personnel. Would anybody like to start this discussion or would you like me to roll into it since I'm already talking? Okay, nodding of heads. All right, I'll take it. So Chen Moore in here, I did have them fairly high on the ability of firm and personnel. They did show similar projects and it looks like the team that they have proposed here has done work together and other similar types of projects. So I had them out of the 45 possible, I had them at 38 here, fairly high within that bucket. We'd like to good news. Paul, I will. I scored Chen Moore 43, superior level of experience and professional resources. Organization of project team is superior. I had Chen Moore here at 40. I believe they need to give you the requirements and have exceptional experience. I have Chen Moore at a 35. They show the understanding for the project with past experience. We've come to a consensus on the score before moving on. Okay. So we've got several very highs, 40 and 43, and then some that are still in the high bucket at 35 and 38. Does anybody have anything that they want to throw out as an overall? I know we're not averaging here. It seems to me that we've got, you know, fairly strong in this category. Yeah, I would, I'd be happy to see them in that high 30s, low 40s area. I agree. Correct. I still believe my 40s. Okay. Proposal for 40. I agree with that. Okay. Yeah. 40 on that one. All right. Continuing on with Chen Moore, let's look at A2 now. Firms experience with projects of a similar size and type. This particular bucket is out of 40 points. I have them out of 40 as a 32. And the reason I have a little bit lower here is that though the team has very similar projects, they're all in South Florida. We don't have any in the Tampa Bay area. And so you may not have as familiarity with the local conditions that we have out here. It's not to say that Florida is not that dissimilar, but as differentiator, that was mine. That's why I drove that down just a little bit more. So I scored Kenny Jinx at 37. No, I'm sorry. Oh, I scored them 36. Project examples, exhibit strong, similarity of scope to that with those projects, project and firms approach and methods were consistent with the, with the same, slightly fewer CMAR examples compared to other firms. I had Chen Moore for experience at 34. I had Chen Moore at 32. They, like you said, they did do, they do have larger projects that are similar just in Florida, like a different area 2025 for our project of the year. I just want to interject for one moment. We can't, we can't affect their score by vocation. So their projects are in different area. We can't affect their score by that. Okay. Based on their experience. Yeah. That's, I still think that's a very difficult thing. You've got a 34 on there. Correct. So we got based on that. Um, John, does that affect your, I would be willing to go up to 34 from 32 for that. Doesn't affect my score at all. I didn't, um, I didn't consider location. Okay. I did. So I'll move mine up then. I'm, I'm okay with coming up that 34 level as well. Um, are we okay to 34 as a consensus? Yes. Well, you too. Okay. 34 there. And we're smooth to 83 on Chen Moore. Um, this is firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. Okay. So, um, they did have, uh, some good proposed controls and, uh, planning in their documents there. Um, they, uh, compared to some of the others, it wasn't the strongest, um, and what was proposed. So I had them sitting at a seven out of 10 with the, uh, that score. You also have seven. Okay. I scored them at an eight for that for the same reasons. Okay. I scored them at six. Um, what you mentioned, but they, I mean, they do understand the need for a CMR. So, okay. Um, so we have a six, two sevens and an eight there. There's a seven of consensus for everybody. Okay. Seven on that. On Chen Moore, a four. This is effective firms, recent, current, and projected workload. Uh, this was out of five points, uh, overall. Um, I had them at a three there. Uh, I went through the availabilities of everybody that, uh, sent it to us. Theirs was, uh, fairly average to everybody. Wasn't the most available that was out there. Uh, so that's why I had them right in the middle with that three. I scored them at three also. Okay. That's the three, three, three. I scored them as a five. Why'd you give a five on them? Well, to be honest, they, they all seem to be right around the same. I scored them all five. Okay. Because I couldn't, I really didn't find much difference, um, in that criteria between them. So yeah, I, uh, I did the engineer geeky thing and actually pulled the average of everybody's availability and I just ranked them that way. So, um, that's, I went off the numbers, but you can call me names later. So, um, so we have three, threes and a five on there. What's the, uh, we're going to do consensus wise. Yes, we need to go through. We don't have to, this is part of the discussion. Do you, do you feel strongly on five on that? Um, I think my opinion, they should all be scored the same, whether it's a three or four or five. Okay. You would score them all? I would score them all the same. So, you know, we're all waiting up. I would, um, I would say I'm fine. I would be buying going up to a four issues with that one. No, I don't have issues with that. So, four, one of that, like a little bit more. And then, Ashley, are there any others that we need to talk about in this committee? I think you guys handle the rest of that. Yep. I want to go over it right now, just to confirm everything. So, for Chen Moran Associates, criteria one, we have a score of 40. Criteria two, a score of 34. Criteria three, a score of seven. Criteria four, a score of four. They, um, do not have any SBE participation bonus points. They did receive three past performance bonus points. They did receive five volume of work bonus points. That brings their total to 93. The next one on the list to discuss is Kennedy Jenks of Consultants, Inc. Kennedy Jenks. So, we'll go back to A1. And since, Paul, you were chomping at the bit to get with them earlier, I'll let you lead off this time. So, A1, again, is at 45 points. And this is under the, um, ability of firm and its personnel, professional personnel. I scored them at a 37. Um, above, I feel like they exhibited above average professional experience and the PM has above average qualifications. That's it. I have Kennedy Jenks at the 40s on there. I've heard of them at 35. 35. Any commentary for me to you guys on wanting to score what you did? Don't have to. I'm just giving the option. I just believe they have the, they meet all the criteria and they have to experience their personnel's experience. And I'm interested in that from what I've read. Yeah. They listed in an alternative, parallel routing, a visual map showing the potable and reclaim, uh, showing another path. I thought that was unique. Um, similar to you, John, I had them also as a 35 on that one. Um, and I also agree, I thought they had a very well thought out approach in there. So, I appreciated that. Um, and, uh, that was, uh, that was good. So, we have two 35s, a 37 and a 40 on that. We'll be thinking consensus-wise. 36, 37? Yeah, 37. There's that 37. 37 on the personnel there. All right. Moving right along. Kennedy Jenks, A2. This is Berm's experience with projects of a similar size and tight. Um, Paul, you want to leave us with your question again? Sure. Yeah. I scored them at a 37. Uh, their project example strongly exhibited strong similarity and scope to that of the proposed project and Berm's approach and methods were consistent with the same, uh, slightly fewer seen more examples compared to other firms. I have, uh, them at a 32. Sure. All right. I have them at 34. Uh, you know, they showed several examples of large diameter pipe projects. And to be 100% honest, I didn't realize we couldn't take the location in. So, with my initial score had location, I'm going to, uh, adjust my score then that I have here. So, I'm going to bump them up since, uh, uh, we're not looking at that. I'm going to take them to 34 online as well because my initial score had location in there. Um, they still didn't show as many, uh, like you said, all the CPARs out there. So, I did catch that. So, we're showing at a 32, two 34s, and a 37. 34 in kind of the middle. Does that work? Okay. All right. A three. We are moving to firms' willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. Um, this is out of 10 points. Again, Paul, I'll let you start myself. Sure. I scored that, uh, Kennedy Jenks at six for this category. Um, I felt that they exhibited a good understanding of the scope and approach, but described more generally than, than others. Actually, I had Kennedy Jenks at eight. I had them at a 10. 10. 10. All right. And I had them at a seven. So, we're kind of spread out here. Uh, my rationale on that, they had very well considered risks and control measures. Uh, but most of what they were focused on that I picked up was construction, not design, which is what we're ultimately hiding or hiring them for. And so, I did, uh, ding them a little bit there because they were, their focus was, uh, on that, the, the construction point. Um, but overall, I thought it was very well done. So, uh, 10, eight, seven, and six. I'm gonna start and wrestle for it. I know. Um, you want to, again, go towards the middle, like the eight that's in there? Seven? What were you saying, Paul? Probably seven. Seven, Paul says? Seven. Seven. Okay. That's, you okay with that? Yeah. All right. And then, lastly, a four. This was workload. Um, and, uh, so for Kennedy Jenks on this one, again, I have five points. Paul, you said they were all about equal. Yeah. Okay. So, I have to go with four. Yeah. I also have to go with four. We'll go with the four of them. Um, so, Ashley, there's your consensus on Kennedy Jenks. To recap, we have the criteria one, 37 points, criteria two, 34 points, criteria three, seven points, criteria four, four points. They did receive five bonus points for SBE participation, three bonus points for past performance, five bonus points for volume of work. This brings their total to 95. The next one is going to be, um, McKim and Crete. Okay. So McKim and Crete, we'll go back to A1, and I'm gonna take Paul off the hot seat on this one. And, uh, Vincent, it's your, your turn to lead us off, if you don't mind. Yeah. So, out of 45 points for the ability of firm and its personnel, I believe they had a strong personnel, both experience and, uh, you know, uh, staffing, you know, capabilities. So I have the 41. Good. I also have them in 41. It shows that you have a good understanding of the scope. Uh, disciplines are all outlined and very, very good experience. Um, I had them at a 40, um, but, uh, I was real appreciative of the two design teams that they were proposing here to speed this along. They had a good understanding. Um, and I think that both the teams that they're proposing, I think it was themselves and Artura, seemed very capable, um, in doing this level work. Okay. And, um, I can agree that I scored a 40. Uh, the exhibit is superior qualifications and professional experience, superior project team organization resources. Okay. Two forties, two forty ones. High or low? Forty. No, we'll vote for 40. Okay. Are you guys okay with a 40? Or are you, what do you feel? I'm going to do 41. 41. All right. 41. Okay. All right. I can go along with that. So 41 there. A two for, uh, McKim and Creed. That's what you have. Uh, again, I think they showed, uh, great experience with similar projects and, uh, I also have them at a 35. I actually have them at a 38. I thought they had, um, very good experience on, um, on similar type of projects. And then, Paul, about you? I actually had them at 28. Ooh. All right. Proposed, you know, qualifications appear adequate, slightly less large pipeline experience than others. Firm exhibits, adequate understanding of the project and above average professional resources. Okay. So we've got two 35s to 38 and a 28 on there when we think of any. Paul, are you willing to come up? Oh yeah. On there? Okay. Um, I can come down to that 35 level, uh, they're proposing in there. Is that going to be too high for what you're thinking? What were the other? 235, so 38 and 28. I think I can come to that. 35? Yeah. Go for what you guys have. All right. 35 there. Okay. A3 on McKim and Creed. This is firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements. Yeah. I believe they're, uh, submittal. I have a good understanding of budgeting and, um, I believe I, I do have them in a nine. Okay. John? I have them in a ten. Understands, uh, the need for Seymour and time constraints. Uh, they, they talked about their survey and sue for overlapping portions, you know, saving time and resources for reclaim and water. I have them in a nine. The only reason I have them in a nine and on a ten actually goes, contrary to what I'd said earlier, because they have two firms, you're going to have to have stronger controls between the two and making sure that those designs are running well in parallel and that you're keeping on top of them. Um, you know, had all of that experience somehow been under one roof, I would have gone with a ten for sure. That was the, uh, my, my concern there. I scored them at a ten. Exhibited a superior level of understanding, approached the scope, and offered more projects, specifics, then others offered a unique budget enhancement strategy beyond the other ones did. Okay. So two nines and two tens. I think nine after what we talked about. Okay. It's a nine. Okay. And then the, um, effective firms current and projected workload. I do have them as a five. I'm listed as a five. I mean, they talk about backup staffing structure for all team members, uh, the large availability over the next year, um, and the profit, the past projects. Yeah. I have them out of four. So I originally have them out of three. Um, and that was only because of their numbers were the least available of all of them by a few percentage points. Again, a lot of that's a shot in the dark. I'm willing to come up to four and call that the average there. Everybody's good with that. Okay. That's it. There's four other four on that span. I hate to do this. Can we revisit criteria two from the chemistry? Yes. I said 28. I was looking at the wrong line on my computer here. It was actually a 38. 38. Yeah. I was looking at the previous criteria. So we ended up with 35. We had two 35s and then that would make two 38s for that one. Do we want to revisit that score? Oh, I think so. John, do you agree where we want to go with that? 36, 37? I'd say 37. 36. I'll go with 36. All right, Ashley. So that second one, so 35 would be a 36 or 82. To recap for McKim and Creed, criteria one, we have a score of 41. Criteria two, 36. Criteria three, nine. Criteria four, four points. They did receive five bonus points for SBE participation, three bonus points for past performance, five bonus points for volume of work. That brings their score to 103. The next one on the list is Mead and Hunt. Mead and Hunt. Let's go back to A1. Those and for Paul, A1, Mead and Hunt. Got it. All right. John, I'm putting you in the hot seat this time. You can leave this up. Mead and Hunt, I scored them a 40. You know, previous projects of 42 and 48 as transmission names. That speaks to me. I have been under the 42. 40 as well, or 42? 42. 42. Oh, what did you have for them? That was the 28 that I was looking at before. Those PM qualifications here, Adequist. I've been less large pipeline experience than others. For the ability of the program? That was criteria one, correct? Yeah. Okay. And then I had them at a 35 there. I thought their approach was fairly generic to that. The team was solid and did have a good understanding of the county's needs. So we have a 40, a 42, a 28, and I think 35. So, Paul, your big ding for the 28 was the PM's qualifications there, is what you were addressing. Yeah, essentially. Okay. And then John and Vincent, since you guys were both in the 40s, y'all saw that still was highly qualified there? Yeah, I think they would still be qualified. What was your death? The reason was the PM qualifications slightly less large pipeline experience than others and the firm exhibited adequate understanding of the projects and above professional and above average professional resources. Okay. Ashley, am I allowed to talk about the references that we got that we call, or is that a... You can reference. Okay. So, since we're talking about this mobility firm and it is professional personnel, I want to call out, I don't know if everybody got a chance, I did call the references in there. This particular firm got repeated phenomenal ratings by folks that I call other governments, much more so than the other ones that we saw on there. And they were talking about, and I agree with you, although his experience didn't show it, they said his ability and professionalism on the PM that they had proposed was the same one on these other projects. And that Fernando, Pasco County, trying to go off of memory on that in front of me, were both raving about how it's their favorite consultant. That doesn't have to go into our scoring here, but I thought that's worth noting, you know, because I wasn't expecting that. Normally, when you call these, you get average. Yeah, they did fine. They did fine, but they went out of their way to say how big things worked. So... Wait, I'm the other outlier here. I'm so 42. I'm willing to come down. I just don't know where we would be consensus-wise. I believe we should be probably between 35 or 40, yeah. Probably somewhere in that area, although I don't want to drag Paul to that. Paul, where would you be willing to go on the consensus here, since you're the other outlier on that? Yeah. What were the other scores? We had a 40, 42, 35, and 28. I mean, I could go 35, still on the low. Probably it should be higher than 35, 36 or 37. You'd want to go a little bit higher than that. I said, you'd want to get a little bit higher. No, I'd say 36 or 37. Okay. Yeah, 37, since you have 40. I'm okay with the 37 on that. All right. A2. A2. I have a 25 project examples exhibit. Fewer similarities in scope to that of the proposed project and firm's approach and methods were consistent with the same, and they had the least number of CMR examples compared to the other firms. Okay. John, would you have about 30? 32 of them? Yep. I have another 32. 32 or 30 as well? 32. 32. Just making sure I'm here. No, you're right. I should stop using the two. And then I actually, I'm the outlier then, so I had a 34 on that, that they had similar projects in scope in that area, but I did acknowledge they didn't have as many on the CMR. So I'm certainly blown to come down. So we have a 25, a 30, a 32, and a 34. Do we want to meet somewhere around that 30, 31, kind of the middle, or somebody feels strongly? Okay. 31? I'm okay. I'm good with 31. 31. Okay. All right. 83. Farmer's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget. Who did you have, John? I gave them a six. They explained that they understand the need for alternative delivery methods, design, build, progressive, design, build, and see more. Okay. I have them at seven. I had them at five. They presented a general, generalized approach to the scope, schedule, and budget. And they'll make seven. But acknowledge what you said, it's pretty generic when they came about that. So that would put us in the middle at six for folks. Okay. There. Yeah, that's my friend. I think that reflects overall. It was, seems like less effort in that aspect of it. So. And then lastly, with them, a four effect of firms, recent, current, and projected workload. I gave them a four. And then my statistics, I had them as five. It showed most availability, but I'm going to come down to four. So we'll go to consensus four. So Ashley, you should have 37, 31, six, and four. Yes, sir. That's really good. And then they did earn five bonus points for SBE participation, three bonus points for past performance, three bonus points for volume of work, and that brings their total to 89. The next one is V and A Consulting Engineers. V and A. Back to A1, Ilya Fern and its professional personnel who would like to start us off. I can do it. I'll start. All right. I scored them at a 30. The proposed PM qualifications appear, adequate, firm exhibits, adequate understanding of the project, and above average professional resources. I have the men actually have one. How do you score? I mean, through the middle, I feel like they have, they had adequate experts to with good experience with our most prominent. I scored them at a 35. You know, experience with sharp projects already in-house, surveys through CEI and gives a greater control of the schedule. I actually had them at a 30. Paul, in my main reasoning there, was a team solid, but they seem to be lacking in depth. They would show just one person for a given role, and sometimes we're seeing that some of these others, but they've had backup VMs and backup engineer team built out. So that was just a way of differentiating, but I didn't have any major concerns there, so I wanted to come off at 30. That was my rationale. So we have a 30, 41, 35, and another 30. Yeah. I mean, I wasn't too concerned with the backups as much. I mean, that's perfectly fine. If we want to come down from there because of that, you know, I just assumed to move on there was going to be solid enough to do the job based off their experience, and that's fair. But yeah, I'm willing to come down here. I've come down from 35 based on what you just said. I didn't really take that into consideration, but that is very important. I'm willing to come up a little bit, a couple of points, 32. 33. So 32, 33, what do you think? Since you're the other outlier on the opposite side, right, weren't you? Yeah. Again, I liked their experience and their personnel there. So I mean, I'm actually 33. 33? Yeah. 82. Farms experience with projects of similar size and type. What's the lead us off? I will. Okay. I scored them at a 30 project examples exhibit slightly less similarity in scope to that of the proposed project, and firms approach and methods were consistent with the same. And fewer CMAR examples compared to other firms. I have them at 34. 34. 34. 34. 34, and I also have them at 34. My rationale on that was they are showing many similar projects in there, even though they aren't all CMARs, but at least on the design side, very decent experience with that. And it looks like they can handle it. So we have three 34s and one 30 on that. What do we think? 33? 33? 33. 33? You guys okay at 33? Yep. All right. 83, firm's willingness to meet schedule and budget. Yep. I can do, I added down as a five. They were much like they had a generalized approach to scope schedule and budget, but they offered very similar software usage for schedule and budgeting as the others. Five. I had them as a seven. So five. Five. I had them as a six for similar reasons, very generic. Good past performance on budget, but their overall approach is very generic and not really directed at the project. So two fives, a six and a seven. I had six. Six. Okay. And then last, we have the effective firm's recent currently projected workflow, or workload, excuse me. Did y'all score there? What are you thinking? I have them as a four. Four. Okay. Three. I have them the same as the others. Four. Four. I had them at three, but I'm going to come up and make it four, since that's what we had talked about on the first one there. So are we okay with an average of a four here? Good? Yes. All right. So Ashley, you should be seeing a 33, 33, six, and four. That's what they have. And then they did earn five bonus points for SBE participation, three bonus points for past performance, zero bonus points for volume of work. That brings their score to 84. I will go ahead and I will confirm all scores again, just to make sure everything is correct. Starting with Chen Moore and Associates. Criteria 1, 40. Criteria 2, 34. Criteria 3, 7. Criteria 4, 4. Zero points for SBE participation, three points for past performance, three points for past performance, five points for volume of work. Their total is 93. For Kennedy Jinx Consultants. Criteria 1, 37. Criteria 2, 34. Criteria 3, 7. Criteria 4, 4. Five points for SBE participation, three points for past performance, five points for volume of work. Their total is 93. McKim and Creed, Inc. You said Kennedy Jinx's total was 93. I'm sorry, 95. Thank you. 95. My apologies. McKim and Creed, Inc. Criteria 1, 41. Criteria 2, 36. Criteria 3, 9. Criteria 4, 4. They did have five bonus points for SBE participation, five bonus points for past performance, five bonus points for volume of work. Their total is 89. Criteria 1, 33. Criteria 2, 31. Criteria 3, 6. Criteria 4, 4. They have five bonus points for SBE participation, three bonus points for past performance, three bonus points for volume of work. Their total is 89. Their total is 89. Criteria 1, 33. Criteria 2, 33. Criteria 3, 6. Criteria 4, 4. Criteria 4, 4. Criteria 4, 4. Is everyone in agreement with these? Sure. Yes. Okay, perfect. As stated in the solicitation document, the county shall require discussions by no fewer than three shortlisted firms. The chair will provide a department memo confirming the shortlisted firms. Please be advised that the code of silence is still in effect until the notice of intent to recommend award five day protest period ends. All questions must be directed to me. Okay. And that concludes our meeting. Thank you everybody for joining us.