Evaluation committee to interview all seven proposers, schedule orals and consider best-and-final offers

The County Evaluation Committee agreed Thursday to invite all seven shortlisted firms that responded to RFP25-00293 to oral presentations and to use those sessions to close gaps in proposals before final scoring. The committee’s senior buyer, Ethan Kersey, said the written proposals will be supplemented by oral presentations so members can ask clarifying questions and evaluate capabilities that were unclear on paper. “We will not score today because we will, in fact, be following up with a round of oral presentations,” Kersey said at the start of the meeting. Committee members and procurement counsel urged interviewing every proposer rather than shortlisting only a subset. Scott Sherman, identified in the meeting as a senior procurement director who advised the committee, recommended interviewing all firms so the committee can “give them every opportunity” and confirmed interviews can be recorded and used in deliberations. Why it matters: The orals will help the county resolve material uncertainties the written proposals did not fully address — for example, whether vendor call centers are turnkey, how case-management platforms would be configured, how prime and sub roles will be staffed, and divergent cost assumptions across proposals. What the committee directed: Staff will send formal letters inviting firms to present by video conference, request that each firm bring the project manager and any subconsultant leads needed to answer detail questions, and schedule one-hour oral sessions (roughly 10–15 minutes for the firm’s opening presentation and the remainder for questions). Members agreed to allow a short period after oral presentations for individual reflection before reconvening to finalize scores. Cost and procurement process: Committee members flagged substantial variation in total proposed costs and asked staff to prepare an apples‑to‑apples cost comparison for the group. The committee discussed using a best‑and‑final-offer (BAFO) step to resolve pricing or scope gaps if interviews leave open questions. Procurement counsel noted the county’s procurement protections and the 30‑day administrative window that governs the solicitation timeline. Scoring approach: Members debated consensus scoring versus mathematical averaging. Procurement counsel recommended consensus scoring to produce a deliberative record and to avoid individual score records that can complicate post-award protests. The committee agreed to deliberate as a group and document rationale for final ratings. Next steps: Staff will issue interview invitations and a short list of clarifying topics to each firm, schedule the oral sessions in the coming weeks, circulate a detailed cost comparison to committee members, and return to the committee with recorded interviews and a draft recommendation after the oral round. Ending: No formal motion or vote was taken; the meeting produced a clear directive to proceed with orals, collect clarifying cost information, and preserve the record for a reasoned final selection.