Good morning committee members and other parties of interest. The Evaluation Committee meeting for RPS 2600238, Construction Engineering and Expection Services for the One Water South Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment Project 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 Sybil Tucker. I am the buyer for this project. For the record, this meeting is being recorded. It has been publicly noticed. At this time, I ask each committee member to introduce themselves for the record, and we will begin with the committee chair. Good morning, everyone. My name is Lizeth Moore. I'm a program manager with the Water Resources Department. Ben Carlisle, Hillsborough County Water, excuse me, Technical Services Division. Dave Watson, Hillsborough County Water Resources, Technical Services Division, Engineer 2. Ali Guerrero, Hillsborough County. I'm on operations. Okay, thank you. So the proposal will be scored based on the following criteria, of which we've received three proposals for this project. The first criteria being ability of the firm and its professional personnel for a possibility of 40 points. Criteria two, the firm's experience with projects of similar type and size for a possibility of 35 points. Criteria three, the firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements for a possibility of 20 points. Criteria four, and criteria four, the effect of the firm's recent current and projected workload for a possibility of five points. We also have the SBE bonus participation bonus points for a possibility of five additional points. The past performance for a possibility of five additional points and the volume of work for a possibility of five additional points, of which I will provide those scores at the conclusion of the evaluation. So as stated in the solicitation document, the proposals are to be scored based on the information or the requirements of the solicitation document as it correlates to the evaluation criteria only. So at this time, I'm going to go ahead and turn the meeting over to Lizeth to begin the discussions and scoring. Thank you, Sybil. All right. So I think we received some pretty strong proposals. I'd like for us to evaluate them in alphabetical order, and we'll go through all of the criterias for each firm, then we can move on to the next firm. And I'd also like to propose that instead of the same person kicking off the conversation every time that we go around the room and lead off the different people leading off the conversation. So I can start the first firm is Accenture, Infrastructure and Capital Projects, LLC. So I'll start with criteria number one. I'll share my thoughts and my score, then we can go around the room and then we can agree on a consensus score and then move on to the other one. Does that sound good to you guys? Okay. So criteria number one is the ability of firm and professional personnel. So for Accenture, I think many of their key personnel have pretty impressive resumes and backgrounds, but I felt that they did not highlight their construction management experience well. I think a lot of the resumes highlighted more of like a project program management and their technical expertise. Another thing that I noticed from the proposed organization is that it's kind of top heavy. They have a lot of leadership positions, technical advisors, and project controls. And I think between the org chart, the resumes provided, and the narrative, there was a lot of emphasis put on the as needed services and technical positions, which I think our scope highlighted, like the dire need is construction observation and construction administration. And so I think a lot from the narrative, there was a lot of like leading this and oversight, and I really would have liked to see a lot more of like the fuel people who are going to be out in the construction trailer, out on the site with us, which again, is the most dire need for this contract highlighted a little better. And just like as a summary for the resumes, you know, we asked all the teams to provide 10 resumes, and out of their 10 resumes, they provided, I think, between four and five, like as needed services and technical leads, and they really only showcased one field engineer and none of their inspectors. So I think for all of those reasons, and again, although I do think their personnel showed an above average level of experience, which I think would put them on the fourth box of the evaluation criteria, and I do think the project manager is uniquely qualified, who by the way, I'm assuming is going to be the senior CM listed just based on the fact that in the approach, they noted that he would be the one doing a lot of day-to-day versus who they listed as the program manager. I think he's very qualified, but with that, I did score them on the lower end of this box, because I would say their project understanding didn't quite hit the mark, in my opinion. So I gave them a 24. Henry, can you go ahead and give them? Okay. I give them a 30 on that. Again, you know, I feel like they got the adequate staffing for that, you know, for the disciplines through the project. And, you know, and from what I was reading, they seem to be going to maintain a fixed project throughout the construction, you know, and they have the staffing approach that aligns with the resources and the construction schedule involving work activities. So I can place the personnel as needed throughout the project, but I give them a 30 on that. Okay. Dave? The one thing that I was a little disappointed in was, I believe it was the two field engineers, the EITs, who did not have the resumes in the packet. At least that's what I had come up with. I had ended up giving them a 30 as well. Yeah. Basically, it was the same thing. I work in the field as well, so I'm very focused on the field engineers and the observers, for sure. I mean, they are very good at qualifying people, but I gave them a 20 o'clock now. Okay. So I'm on the lower side, and I think you and Kenny gave them the 30, I think, out here, kind of in the middle. I want to say I did see the field engineer's resume in there. Yeah. He's the Jordan field engineer. His resume was in there, and I did note he has wastewater treatment plant experience, but the other field engineer that they noted in their org chart was primarily, I think they've listed her in the approach, and it's really more for pipelines, which is not really established as a base scope of work. So I presume that's why they didn't show the resume, but I would say, you know, this criteria, number one, you know, between what's in the evaluation criteria, what was in our scope of work, it was really supposed to be them showcasing their firm and their personnel to have, like, appropriate level qualifications. And I would say, yes, like, everybody has appropriate level qualifications. I think, again, the reason I probably scored them on the lower end of that was because I don't think there was, like, a very clear understanding. Like, yes, I think they understand that we need observers and all of these things, but they should have showcased that a little bit more because construction observer, construction observation is the dire primary need for this contract. So we have a bit of a spread between 24 and 30. I'm willing to come up to maybe, like, a 26 or a 27. If you and Kenny and Dave, like, if you have any thoughts, or are you pretty firm on your number? I mean, I'm fine with around the 27. Yeah. And, yeah, so Jordan's in here. I highlighted, though, that the two projects that I thought were unique were both pipeline and elicitation projects, as opposed to the plant where it's identified. Yeah, those are the perfect ones. Yeah, I would agree in the 27. 27. Yeah. Okay. Is 27 your consensus? Yes. Yes. Yes. So the next criteria, Kenny, do you want to leave us off the map discussion for critters? Yes. I would own by each part. Yeah. Completely. So we're still on center or in center. So the next one is the firm's experience for the projects of similar type and size. You know, I felt like they had adequate projects of, you know, multiple projects of similar size of what this project's going to entail for the One Water campus and the CI services. So what I have is out of the staff that was identified for the project submitted, I noticed that there was only three of them of the key personnel, if you will, were involved with three or more major projects within the firm. However, you know, they have over half the inspectors that was identified had been on at least four or more projects together, you know, within the firm. So they definitely on the inspection side, they seem to showcase that a little bit more with their staffing, I feel, for that, for the projects of the similar size and types. So I give them a 25 in that for the score. So, you know, overall, I mean, the qualifications are fine. And I felt that they were, you know, pulling a couple of their, the EIs and the lower end of the staff from another position or from another project onto this, which is fine. I just kind of felt a little bit that, you know, they were more heavy on the pipeline side as opposed to the plant side. And I gave them a 20. Well, this one, I mean, they have done a lot of big projects for sure, but what I did notice is the, mainly there are like rehabs and huge hybrid placements, stuff like that. But, yeah, I mean, what I gave them was a 25. So, yeah. I also gave them a 25 and I put them in that, you know, fourth box per se because that says, you know, prime firm has more than adequate but successful recent projects experience of similar size and type and that most of the scopes of services provided or representative projects are similar. I would say, you know, they, they definitely have to show a spread of projects to try to meet the minimum criteria, which the minimum criteria that we set was one completed project, which means that needed the construction needed to reach substantial completion on a project that demonstrates successful experience serving as an owner's representative. So, our expectation was going to be a CEI contract or like an OA contract for water, wastewater facility, one water, wastewater project that demonstrated experience with construction services for multi-discipline projects, and one project that demonstrated successful experience with collaborative delivery projects. So, I think between all of them, which by the way, I think three of them, yeah, were actually projects for their sub consultants, CES and CMTS, which we, per the addendum number two, we did allow them to use subs experience as long as like it was experienced for similar work that the subs are being proposed to do. And I think in this case, CES, they highlighted a CES project for Miami-Dade, which was a pretty impressive program. And they did identify them in the org chart to provide civil inspectors. So, I think that's a fair project. Same with the sub CMTS. They're also showing them to provide senior inspectors. So, I think the project is relevant. I think that was the only project where, if I read between the lines, was a design-build project. And one of the requirements was that they had, like, the team or the prime firm had experience with collaborative delivery projects. It looks like the CMTS group was part of the DB team, if I kind of understood what they wrote there. But I will say, I would have liked to see, like, I think generally they met the minimum requirements. If you kind of count all the different projects, I would have liked to see all the projects be water and wastewater. And I would have liked to see that the prime firm, so Accenture, to be the one to show the collaborative delivery experience. So, the point spread that we have is, I think, 20 to 25. Kenny, you being the, no, I'm sorry, Dave, you being the 20. Do you have any thoughts, like, going up to, like, some more closer to where the rest of us landed? Or do you have any further for 20 years? No, I mean, I, you know, I'm fine with, say, a 23, 23, 24 or something. Okay, I mean, I think it's a 24 is close to. Yeah, it's 20 years. And I think it still puts them in that same box. I'd be okay with that, Al. That's okay. So, 24 is a 24. So, the three of us would be coming down to a 24 and then Dave, Dave, go up to a 24. Yeah. Okay, right. Okay. So, Dave, do you want to lead off the discussion for criteria three, the firm's willingness and ability to meet scheduling budget? So, I looked at everything with this. I did, we did get one reference back. And I kind of went heavily on that, which was, you know, they met their scheduling and budgetary requirements for that reference. You know, I looked at it that, you know, again, the experience in wastewater, but they, a little bit of limited experience with the size of this project. And I rated them at a 16. Okay. And if they do provide, you know, the personnel and roles for the projects to the size of this one, as well, that was a good concern. But I actually gave them a 15. I mean, that's how big the right person now and everything. It's just. Okay. I gave them a 15. I gave them a 15. I think they generally talk about the scalable approach to efficiently use the project budget, which I think is important. They also did discuss some strategies on how they would help us manage the overall project budget. Their schedule discussion was really more about how they would support us with the contractor schedule, which I think the intent was more of like how specific to the contract. Can you meet the budget, can you, can you, can you provide the scope of services that we put out there for the scope schedule was really just how will you utilize the contractor schedule to actually do the scalable approach. And I wish they would have done a more project specific approach. I think a lot of the stuff is very generic. I think we provided a, the contractor schedule, a high level contractor schedule with the, with one of the addenda. So I think they could have showcased like a proposed, proposed staffing plan or how they were actually going to do the, like what they say is a scalable approach and avoid a fixed staffing level. So I give them a 15. Penny? Okay. So, you know, they, they appear to have the approach to supply the appropriate expertise at the appropriate time to needs, you know, for whatever the, the project needs are at that time, like you say, the scalable approach. And then they're going to be looking at the quantities daily, review the change proposals and unit costs to help support the transparency throughout the project, which is, I think is going to be key, you know, throughout the project and the, the scheduling and to go along with the budget requirements. which is in the next box here as well. Okay. Okay. So our spreads a little closer. We're between 15 and 18. And now we being the highest. I would be okay with coming up to the 16. Okay. okay yeah agreed so 60 yes okay i can do the last criteria or criteria number four which is the effective firm's recent current and projected workload um i gave them a four which puts them in the last box it says middle shows that consultants project team has adequate staffing available to complete services on schedule and that's middle indicates backup staffing capability in the event of unforeseen circumstances i mean i think they only showed five out of the t 10 key members of the project team normally we like to see all key staff members that are identified but in words they do describe that essentially everyone's going to be made available for the project and that the key personnel haven't been committed to any assignments that would conflict with the project um and that they have some backup personnel throughout the state and i think the southeast um so again yeah i give them a four in that dimension also um you know they seem to be fully vested if awarded the contract um you know seem to have adequate staff they got a pool of 200 they said throughout the state that they could pull from uh to help support the staffing needs if you know if the project needs uh um need it for that so again i give them a four on the project workload i felt that the staffing was was adequate um maybe a couple of little questions on you know the the transfer personnel especially the the eis uh because they were heavily on the fgua contract it looks like uh they were just transferring off that that's an ongoing contract so it's like what are they doing to backfill that yeah that's a really good point i actually have made a note a mental note about that which i mean i appreciate like putting the importance on our project but what are they doing to their other client yeah uh it just wasn't documented yeah especially putting uh i gave them a four i gave them a four too and that's sort of the same thing came out from the combined to have four out of the five key personnel that they put in there they're going to be transitioning for the project getting us a four forward yes four so good sense okay um you can move on to the next firm which is arcadis any do you want to lead off this discussion yeah i can um so coronacate is uh the ability of the cmar firman is professional personnel again i feel like they have uh you know they have the local office in tampa 150 plus staff members including project and design managers uh that they have pulled and pull from um they're supported by over 400 professionals who bring a lot of different technical resources and expertise to the project so i think that's going to be a key aspect of this uh uh one water cei services you know for their for their professional uh personnel so i really think they're gonna they're gonna be well represented if you will with it with the staffing numbers that they've included in in the project so i give them a 35 for this um i felt that they were they were well staffed as well um capable of supporting the project i gave them a 30. 33 i mean same reasons basically i mean it's well-stopping i'm gonna have the pictures okay um i gave them a 33 as well um i thought that their proposed project manager len has a very impressive resume is also a licensed gc in florida which i think is is also very impressive so i think generally is a very strong yeah that's uniquely qualified um i think a lot of the different people had many years of relevant experience um so i think for some of the people i would have wanted to see maybe some larger advanced wastewater treatment facility projects or just wastewater treatment facility projects in their resumes um their team structure i liked that they really assembled a team that aligned very well with their scope of works that tells me they read the scope of work they understand our needs the depth and breadth of the inspection services are very impressive particularly i like the inclusion of specialized inspections i think they listed structural electrical and inc which i think could be of great value um i also like that the team structure avoids unnecessary layers of management where they really understood that it's it's very important for us to prioritize fuel observation right that that's what we need to maximize our budget for um but despite that they did have a role of a construction observation coordinator which i'm not really i'm not clear and like what that person's role would be so that's a little bit of an extra layer um and they did show two rprs um and i would also like to understand just what the thought was for having two but generally like really really strong team um i think their technical advisors are very highly qualified i also would have liked to see how their roles would contribute to the project and some of the approach that they provided the proposal section the little narrative briefly reference the oe team uh i would have liked to see them kind of acknowledge and and provide more detail on how they were going to integrate all of these different people together um so overall like i said i gave them 33 um from the resumes they i think did a better job i would say highlighting both technical advisors startup and commissioning support with their inspectors i would also like to see a lot more of the field people the inspectors the um the other rpr for that matter because again for us the most important thing is the field services work so and so looks like we got a spread of 30 to 35 dave are you comfortable going up to a 32 33 on that um yeah i i am i you know my my thing uh the the technical advisors had the most relevant experience with the size of the project um it was just a question of you know that that's great on paper how much were they actually going to be on site or involved in the project uh at various stages um so that that's why i gave the 30 but i'm comfortable with a 33 so um everyone good with that but it's great so there's the consensus yes ma'am okay moving on to criteria number two firm's experience with project of similar sizing type dave do you want to that discussion for our cadence so when i looked at this uh i you know i came up with a total years of experience with the with the firm and the uh the people put in there um you know i felt that the it had a little bit limited experience with the size of the project um but the uh uh seth wiley uh i felt was was worried on target uh as being the right person on site uh for this project uh i ended up going with a 25 bonus i actually gave him a 26 on that one i think uh their their experience is pretty good i actually gave him a 30. i thought uh the six projects were pretty impressive and they did have some pretty major wastewater treatment experience i think uh i would have liked to see some actual either cei or owner's advisor contracts for the prime firm this they also highlighted in half of the projects yeah three of the projects that they highlighted were for their sub result in eci which again was allowed um and i think the bigger thing for us was that if they were proposing to show a project for a sub that they were showing myself doing similar work and i think they did um with the three projects from eci but there were the i believe the um actual arcadis projects were pretty impressive but they were pretty massive wastewater treatment projects um i digged them a little bit because one of the projects is outside over the five years which was a preference not a requirement um and also just i appreciated that they highlighted the transmission main project which i'm very proud of very successful project um but eci um the project was led by a different consultant and eci provided fuel observation services but they did very well with the fuel observation services um i think they approached that they again very similar to kind of the approach they put for one really highlighted that they read and understood our scope of services and our needs um and would have liked to see again how they would have integrated specifically with our our county team and our oa stuff a little better but i think that the project experience was okay okay i also give them a 30 in this one um again they had uh multiple projects that they put with size and had some larger i thought um throughout the u.s and then seven of the key personnel that they've identified along with inspectors were work together and at least five or more of the projects so you know you have that continuity between the the uh the key personnel you know to help move the project along and understanding so i felt that that really come into play and um uh the project reference you know they contain the necessary experience and needs for the contract and the cdi services so again i gave them 30 on that so that the spread on this in this box is 25 to 30. yeah and i think we're also in two different boxes right there's the fourth box that says adequate successful recent experience and then superior past recent successful experience and then the differentiator between most of the scope of services provided versus all of the scope of services provided representative and similar to the rps scope i put them in the last box because i think i think they're particularly the wastewater treatment projects for arcadia they're very relevant very impressive um i believe one of the the biggest ones was like a two billion dollar project in san francisco where they provided construction engineering services so i think it's is very relevant in the magnitude of our project so i guess um dave and al um they've got 25.26 yeah so i mean i'm good at coming up to 27 ish up here yeah i think 27 would be the consensus 27 is the consensus yes um okay that was dave now do you want to read uh criteria number three for arcadis the firm's willing that's an ability to meet schedule and pledge and require well when i read this uh it's basically every point that we have a client so um i don't have much to say about it but i just uh i'll pick it up at 18. i mean they're pretty well equipped and it's interesting i also gave them an 18. i thought that i very much appreciate a project specific approach i think they put some time into thinking about our project our project needs they studied the construction schedule that we've provided and they showed how what our needs are what they think our needs are for the immediate term and the long term i like the graphic they had at the end that showed their proposed staffing plan um and they acknowledged the schedule and they also did include some added value recommendations for the project like concrete board cards which i really like so i gave them an 8. i give them a 17. uh their willingness and able to deliver the required scope of work on time and with the added value as you said to the project and within the budget you know seem to have a vast knowledge of uh the staff you know staffing to work within the accelerated schedules which is is going to be a key component i think as the way these projects progress uh to meet the budget and time constraints so i gave them 17. i was very comfortable with what they presented as far as the budgetary requirements and the scheduling uh i gave them and 18. okay so i think we're all pretty close there i'm good coming are you okay okay so i think the consensus or for that is 18 18. yes okay uh okay so i will do criteria number four for arcades which is the effect of the firm's recent current and projected workload uh i do have five i thought um they the graphic that they presented showed they're key people in the org chart and most importantly the most critical people which are the again the field people people are going to be at the construction trailer at the construction site which are the rpr and the inspectors are shown as 100 available i basically have the same thing 100 available you know with the key staff and uh inspectors so they appear to be well staffed they handle the workload um with the inspector so i gave them before as well i i was comfortable with everything they presented uh as far as the scheduling goes i gave them a five i gave them a five as well okay so i'm i'm comfortable going up to a five i mean they think you are okay if you are i mean they definitely presented um the workload and represented the staff so yeah i would agree i think more than that there so are you okay with the five i'm okay with the five so um moving on to the third firm plumber anything can you lead our discussion for criteria number one the early firm and its professional personnel so for this dimension it's uh the the firm and it's uh professional personnel so reading through the impression i got plumber's got 137 team members across the across the team with 23 being local to hillsborough county they uh they align with ci resources and in the um progressive dine bill progressive uh design build teams living schedule so they have a they've highlighted wall of qualified cdi's uh experts you know daily field uh proven success on comparable projects so i give them a 35 in this dimension and i feel like they outlined and uh identified the their personnel very well um for their qualifications um so just making a statement i very much like their work structure it was just very clear very very specific to follow um i felt that their experience you know they had a lot of experience in florida uh but uh with the same size projects with similar projects i ended up giving them a 35 as well i actually get in a 35 as well i did i like what i saw and uh they have these uh experience of the on-field people are it's just amazing i'm sorry what was your score 35 yeah um i also gave them a 35 i fill on notes one of the i think biggest positives of this proposal was that they truly aligned their team their organization the narrative very well their scope of work um very similar to the statement i made previously they are avoiding unnecessary layers management and oversight really prioritizing field of observation and the people out in the field which is what we need the most um i really like the the different key members a lot of them have a lot of experience working together um they also included the inclusion but they included um specialty subs one that i really liked was the coatings and weldings inspections so that they have um their approach i thought was project specific was excellent and very hyper focused on how their past experience past structure and team are going to meet our needs and all of our objectives they also acknowledge the importance of our oa team and provide some detail on how they would blend all the groups together the proposed project manager i think is a pretty solid pm who also has experience with county everybody's resumes were very impressive very cei construction observation focused um and i i did will say with all of their resumes or people on the field except i think the principal in charge an advisor and startup commissioning lead everybody they showcase their observers very well their lead rprs or backup rprs but even in the org chart they did show their depth as the as needed section so they understood that we may need them and they're showing that they have them available but it is not the the primary goal of this contract so again with 35 i think we all did so 35 the firms experienced projects of similar size and type i mean when you go through and look at their resumes and the uh the projects that they presented uh you know i looked at the projects in florida uh a couple of projects that they had in texas uh i ended up speaking with someone from texas on their uh reference list uh you know everything was was very positive uh i felt that they would be what they presented was very relevant to our project uh i ended up giving them a 30 on this i'm sorry what a 30 30. al i actually gave them a 31 on that uh they're experienced with some other projects but again i think they have uh done some with accounting as well so yeah absolutely i gave them a 33 i thought all the projects presented were very impressive and directly relevant to our scope each was also completed by the prime firm and all focused on water and wastewater meeting several of the minimum requirements and showing i think all of them showed pretty strong similarities to our project and this contract um their approach was you know tailored to the project in alignment with their services again um i think their approach also showed some innovative methods to deliver a high level of service for us um and i really liked i think they had two graphics one that showed how their past projects aligned with our requirements and highlighting the the relevant similarities which i thought was great and helpful and then the other graphic where they mapped like different potential issues and risks that they see in this project and how they implemented similar strategies of different projects to mitigate them or previous projects to mitigate them so i thought that it was very nicely done i'm gonna give them a 33. i give them a 32 in this one um they again they've had uh equivalent jobs of size uh locally and out of state as we all discussed already you know with the advanced water treatment plants um they've had staffing that's you know worked on at least five or more projects together they combine the local management with field-based cei expertise for the one water program um experience discipline construction administration uh they deploy they deploy specialty inspectors as the workload requires so i think that's a key component you know uh they're specialized uh uh ceis for whatever the needs are at that time so i i give them a 32 i think again as you said they presented the uh um their experience and uh projects this size uh equivalent you know uh to what we're doing i think they really represented it well so the spread of 33 13233 probably 32 it would be okay yeah it'd be okay 32 32 32 is your consensus for criteria three plus track uh should be how um how can you lead the discussion for the firm's willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements well i kind of like the uh all the graphs they provided it was easy and they made it i mean at least for me very simple you know to um see the willingness of and the uh personnel um that way to complete the projects of conference and also the other graphic that they did is you know the comparisons between the current projects that they have in hours they cannot give you you know basically i think the other they are willing to um i think they provided a very project specific approach uh their staffing plan just the graphic kind of like a resource curve uh was really impressive and actually aligns very well with what we've been anticipating our needs were going to be um from looking at the the contractor's resource-loaded schedule uh they definitely studied the schedule that was provided which was a high level schedule um and aligned it not just with the baseline staff but i liked how they also showed specialty inspectors and then some of the potential like asking agent services believe very impressive um the proposed observers nrprs they are proposing of service nrprs with multi-disciplinary experience with this concept of let's do more with less which i think is going to be really important for us to maximize our budget so i gave an 18. kenny uh i have an 18 as well um you know they have a scalable staffing approach to align with the uh uh for us design build team schedule you know they have their approach you know with the county the right support at the right time to match ci staff into the construction activities to help reduce cost uh you know and then then with the uh the schedule performance and the milestones throughout the project and then the critical path reviews uh you know to help within the budget controls um the contingency tracking and uh the independent cost assessments throughout the project with it uh again i give them an 18 on this to uh to help with the budget requirements and the uh schedule and so i i really like to grab that especially when it came to the staff allocation and a breakdown uh that they gave over the course of the project uh i ended up giving them a 19 on this okay so we got 318 and 19. are you okay so the consensus is an 18. that's okay and the last one is the effective firm's recent current and projected workload for this longer um i gave them a five i think uh the graphic shows the 13 that's shown in the org chart and again the most critical people which are the rpr and the inspectors are being shown as a hundred percent okay okay i give them a four in this one um you know they're well staffed to handle the uh proposed workload um you know you got the key role supporting the secondary personnel it's going to be familiar with the project requirements you can step in as needed you know if something does arise so i i give them a four in this uh again i i like the graphic they gave with the breakdown personnel uh and the fact that you know there are multiple people in each category if needed they can they can step in uh i ended up giving them five on it i gave them a five as well same reason i'm good with a five okay so that consensus score is five for that okay so um that concludes the criteria uh evaluation portion so i'm going to go ahead and recap um each consensus score as well as provide the bonus point score so that we can arrive at the total so the first firm essential infrastructure and capital projects llc their uh the committee had a consensus of 27 for criteria one criteria two you had a consensus of 24 criteria three consensus of 16 criteria four a consensus of four they did receive five uh sbe participation bonus points three points for past performance and five points for volume of work which gave them a total overall total score of 84 points arcadis usd right 31 you had a consensus of 33 criteria two criteria two consensus of 27 criteria three consensus of 18 criteria four consensus of five they received zero for the sbe participation points they received three past performance points and zero for volume of work points for a total of 86 points for plumber associates inc criteria one you had a consensus consensus of 35 criteria two consensus of 32 criteria three consensus of 18 criteria four consensus of five they did receive five sbe participation bonus points they received four past performance points and zero volume of work points for a total of 99 points are are all of you in uh agreement with the consensus for the right answer yes ma'am yes okay so the ranking is uh plumber and associates rank number one with 99 points arcadis us inc rank number two with 86 points and accenture infrastructure and capital projects llc rank number three with 84 points so with that said um for uh the at a minimum based on the uh solicitation document we at a minimum we would have to have discussions with these firms to just uh verify their information that was submitted in their proposal for you as the committee can uh decide if you want to have oral presentations and interviews with these firms it is at this time that the committee would need to make that decision if you want to uh have your presentations um my preference is always just the discussions and the q a because i think that's where a lot of the value is i mean i think the document states that this is really just intended to help clarify some of the things that we saw in the proposal but not to bring new information so i think it's a good opportunity to have some face-to-face time with these firms and do a q a but personally i don't think the presentations are necessary presentation portion okay so it sounds like the consensus of the committee is to uh forego or not have oral presentations but to just do the required discussions with each of the firms is that right yes and we are that includes q a correct yes yes okay so um with that said um that's going to conclude the uh evaluation committee meeting uh we will uh create a schedule for the discussions to take place um we will come up with that schedule uh based on your schedules as well as the firm schedules and that information will be provided so at this time that's going to conclude our evaluation committee meeting for rps 2600238 the construction engineering and inspection services for the one water south waste water conveyance and treatment project we thank you all for your your time and your attendance here today and that will conclude the meeting for today thank you all thank you oh i do want to um let me just make one last comment that the cone of silence is still in effect for uh the committee as well as the uh firms that are watching the cone of silence is still in effect is still in effect we have not posted any recommendation so that cone of silence is in effect until the conclusion of after the notice of intent would be posted and the conclusion of that five-day protest period so please keep that in mind you're not to communicate uh with the committee members or anyone from the department um any questions you may have you should submit them to my attention um during this uh cone of silence time so just wanted to make sure you understand the cone of silence is still in effect we do not want to um have any uh mishaps with that so please keep that in mind and do not um violate that cone of silence so again we thank you and that's going to conclude the evaluation evaluation meeting for today thank you all thank you thank you