and other parties of interest the evaluation committee meeting for rps 26-00194 hillsborough county medical examiner facility expansion 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 desire to have access to view the meeting my name is ashley rogero 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'll ask each committee member to introduce themselves for the record beginning with the committee chair i'm brian laverty capital programs committee chair harrison cowan manager of operations hillsborough county medical examiner department philip capital programs project manager 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 the 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 effect of firm's recent current and projected workload the evaluation committee chair brian laverty 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 brian i will turn it over to you well the first uh firm for evaluation is long associates the first criteria is ability of the firm and its professional personnel maximum value point is 35. in my review i found that for the project personnel is the adequate level of experience and the proposed project manager's qualifications are adequate and i gave them a 20 score james similar to what brian said i gave them a 25 based on the direct uh forensic facility experience so personal so i gave them my 25 and i rank long uh as a 20 based off of the information that they provided 20 then okay with that if you want to come to a consensus number is between 20 20 and 25 we can get uh 23. sure yeah the next evaluation criteria number two is firm's experience for the projects similar size and type maximum point value is 35. um the prime firm has adequate successful uh projects um some of the scope and services provided were represented of the projects similar to the rps scope um they did not have full five projects within five years which is tough to attain i believe in this format but so i gave them a 20 on their ability experience uh anderson so i gave them a 25 um based off of their knowledge of medical examiner office people by 19. they did have a lot of local government experience health care experience uh but it was very limited on medical examiner forensic experience so i gave them a 19. so we have a 2019 and 25. uh are we good with a 21. sure i'm good with um next evaluation criteria number three is the firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements um given the um the understanding and approach to the scope and the schedule and the concept that uh potential uh provide provincial potential improvements and delivery costs um adjustments and project cost savings i gave them a 13 score of chains uh i gave them a 12. i just noted they had strong integrated project delivery and coordination capabilities uh the minus was just a little less experience in forensic experience and forensic environments and phased operations so i keep it away and after i read through their information i gave them a 13. so does everyone agree the 13 we stick with 13 yeah on that one the evaluation criteria number four is um effective firms the recent current and projected workload um given their personnel capacity and the overview of the details that were submitted um and the future workload in their project workload um i scored them a 13 on this uh harrison i scored them a 10 the reason um just reading through their their project workloads um and some of their graphs um and their charts i thought that yeah i thought team was fair enough for them kind of similar i gave them about 11. uh just noted smaller staffing goals and several of the farmers so i gave them one so it looks like 11. we're good with 11. yep um james do you want to do the next firm let me just confirm basically oh okay for long and associates for criteria one i have 23 points criteria 2 21 points criteria 3 13 criteria 4 11 they do have five bonus points for sbe participation four bonus points for past performance and zero bonus points for volume of work that brings their total to 77 and go to the next one what are we going with i have meta architects i'll see it for criteria number one available the firm and that's my personnel i gave them a 31 on this i just noted exceptional project team i so recognize forensic specialist uh resources one minus was some of the disciplines relied on consultant support so but i gave them a 31. i'll go next um exceptional level experience um and um the understanding of the subject matter i gave them a 26. reviewed um their work charts and looked at their specialties um their specialties um i gave them a 25. um 27 or 28. um 27 or 28. yeah probably you got one 28 28. okay your number two experience of projects uh i gave them a 33 on this uh they had a lot of my indoor examiner forensic library experience uh all in minus uh i have here really was most of it was outside of the aquarius i gave them 33. um i reviewed um they do have uh some of our sister office experience um i scored them a 30. they had excellent experience um and uh with the size and scope um a pretty good experience there and um i gave them a 25. so what did you give them harrison 30 30. so it looks like would we be good with a 30 with them yeah here number three schedule and budget requirements i did more 15 on this uh they had strong facility experience for development project controls minus was multiple specialty consultants they required a little bit of coordination effort there uh that was something i covered they had uh i like the bi and 360 360 control recovery reschedules uh schedules uh schedules so i gave my 30. i saw that they had the ability to uh meet schedule on a budget um but my score was a 10. reviewed and saw that they had the ability to meet the schedule and budget um i scored them a 15 on this one so it looks like 13 is that good yep until you're here number four current projective workload uh i just noted on here strong staffing staff instead of resource management procedures uh the minus on them and it was just the national workload so that might require some balance projects uh but i gave them a 30. um i saw that they had uh manpower they had expertise expertise um as this project roles they have the workload i gave them uh an 11 on this the same lines as both of you guys i scored them um i gave them a 12. so it looks like uh 12 listen to me yeah okay just to confirm the scores for netta architects criteria 128 criteria 230 criteria 313 criteria 412 they have zero bonus points for sbe participation they have three bonus points for past performance five bonus points for volume of work it brings their total to 91. the next one is the sarah of the associates um osteon so you want to run that sarah associates so for ability a firm as personnel um after reviewing the board charts reviewing the resumes i scored them a 25. saw the project team personnel uh was qualified they have experience sub consultant but have the experience um and manager qualifications are above average but i scored them a 20. i'm going here strong project leadership supported by experienced for agent specialist uh prime consultant uh possessed less direct transit uh the other firms uh so i do one 25 24 24 24 yes 24 to the firm's experience with projects of a similar size and type um so after reviewing their um similar firm experience um they had experience with several several different um different um medical examiner's offices both in state and out uh forensic science centers um as sub as prime roles and subcontractor roles um so i scored them a 30 on this one same lines i had them a 29 another strong medical examiner and occupied facility experience uh alternative support uh only negative thing i really had was uh one of that was through by way of a consultant team uh that around consult so i gave i gave them i saw the same thing with you guys uh more than adequate successful projects um in the same scope vein of this project last word of 25 so we got a 25 29 30 what do you guys think um yeah yeah i said yeah 27 27 yeah for firm's willingness and ability to meet the schedule and budget requirements after reviewing their submittals they had a nice phased account um phased account of how they were going to do um how they would do this i scored them a 10 on this oh i was looking at their um ability to meet schedule on budget um and i scored them a eight score of 11 so that one here strong understanding phase construction uh the minus really was they seem to have a heavy reviving so they consulted uh coordination so that was kind of not lying up there on that so i gave my level yeah they provide in town yeah stick with the 10. sure and then the last um the effect of the firm's recent current and projected workload um really nice layout here um it looks like they have a plan um programming design bidding construction um i scored them a 10 on this one as well i saw the same things uh i saw pretty thorough on how they're going to deliver this uh project i scored them a 10 as well same line so i had them at 11. i just noted good staffing depth uh available resources uh only thing i noted here was active workload across several offices and that requires any sort of balancing so i'm gonna get my left so let's look to him yeah that's five you know 10. to recap the scores for pacero associates lfc criteria 1 24 criteria 2 27 criteria 3 10 criteria 4 10 they do not have any bonus points for sbe participation they do have three bonus points for past performance five bonus points for a volume of work and that brings their total to 79. and the last one we have on our list is pb candy architect okay um the ability to firm is professional person actual points 35. so i did see that the uh personality above averaging level uh proposed project managers and their team their qualifications i believe are above average and i scored them uh 23. yeah um looking at their org chart reviewing their you know experience and resumes um this team has really good experience um with this type of work um i scored them a 25. i just noted strong florida based team will be last qualified in some other environments and i did my time so 24. sure friends experience with projects of a similar size and type uh they had two projects uh similar size and type some will maybe not within the past five years range um but given their um successful track records um in these projects um i can score them a 20. i i've noticed the same thing um they do have um experience with similar projects um review those and i scored them a 25. 23 just probably all counting out of the examiner's office and a few other ones uh i've had a relevant health care experience uh and now several medical examiner projects uh it's a bit low less than some of the other teams uh but yeah i gave a 23. uh when we say 23 23. yep thank you okay uh firm's willingness ability to meet schedule and budget requirements uh i saw that they certainly could perform and uh or can be aggressive on the schedule and work with the budget and think out of the box um i gave them an 11. yeah i scored them you know similar statements i looked at their their information um they will they can meet the schedule um and the budget requirements i gave them a 10. i said this another project management quality control procedures just a little bit less experience managing highly specialized for ended facilities so i gave i gave it to them uh we'll go with 11. firm's uh recent current and projected workloads um the uh projects identified in their workload criteria um and knowing their personnel that's available um i gave them a 12 on this criteria james i gave them a 12 as well just noting uh adequate staff resources uh basically very organized uh i suppose just active workload by an impact resource ability during the periods uh yeah after reviewing their documents i gave them 13. do we do points 12.5 no yeah that's right from the points for pbk architects florida criteria 1 24 criteria 2 23 criteria 3 11 criteria 4 12 they did receive five sbe participation bonus points three bonus points for past performance five bonus points for volume of work it brings their total to 83. so i'm just going to recap all the scores again just to make sure everything is correct and everyone's in agreement long and associates architects engineers inc criteria 1 23 criteria 2 21 criteria 3 13 criteria 4 11 5 bonus points for sbe participation 5 bonus points for sbe participation 4 bonus points for past performance 0 bonus points for volume of work brings their total to 77. neta architects llc criteria 1 28 criteria 2 30 criteria 3 13 criteria 4 12 0 bonus points for sbe participation 3 bonus points for past performance 5 bonus points for volume of work brings their total to 79. 5 bonus points for pbk architects florida inc 5 bonus points for volume of work brings their total to 79. and pbk architects florida inc criteria 1 24 criteria 1 24 criteria 2 23 criteria 3 11 criteria 4 12 5 bonus points for sbe participation 3 bonus points for past performance 5 bonus points for volume of work brings their total to 83. is everyone in agreement with these scores yep as stated in the solicitation document the county found required discussions by no fewer than three shortlisted firms please be advised that the code of silence is still in effect until the notice of intent to recommend award by the protest period ends all questions must be directed to me via unit or email and i will await the department's memo to for the shortlisted firms thank you everyone hope everyone has a great day and the meeting has ended