HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, Fla. — An evaluation committee reviewing proposals for Hillsborough County’s solicitation RPS 25-00264 — professional and miscellaneous services for geomatics — met July 31 and reached consensus scores and a final ranking of 20 firms, placing McKim & Creed first.

The committee, led by Daniel Sullivan, used four evaluation criteria — firm personnel and qualifications; experience with projects of similar size and type; willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget; and recent/current/projected workload — to score proposals and then applied the solicitation’s bonus-point provisions (disadvantaged/minority/WBE participation, volume of county work, and past performance) to compute final totals.

Why it matters: The ranked shortlist will guide which firms are eligible for negotiated task orders under the county’s geomatics services contract. The committee’s scoring and documented concerns about firm availability and specialty skills (for example, hydrographic surveying and CAD capacity) shaped where firms landed in the final ranking.

The committee received 20 proposals on July 31, 2025, and proceeded proposal-by-proposal in alphabetical order. Ethan Kersey, the senior buyer for the solicitation, opened the meeting and reminded participants that the session was being recorded and publicly noticed and that “the cone of silence is still in effect.” Committee chair Daniel Sullivan led the scoring discussions and called for consensus on each criterion.

Committee members repeatedly discussed differences in individual scoring ranges and then agreed on consensus scores. The panel identified several recurring themes while evaluating firms: whether each firm listed the disciplines Hillsborough County required (hydrographic surveyors were noted as frequently subcontracted), whether firms proposed sufficient staffing and backup capacity for the contract term, and whether proposals included approaches that could yield schedule or cost savings.

The committee also flagged capacity issues in a few firms’ workload charts. For example, one firm’s proposal showed limited CAD-technician availability, which the committee said could create a bottleneck for some task orders; another firm’s near-term project schedule reduced its availability in the county’s preferred early contract period.

After consensus scoring of the four criteria, the committee chair asked staff to add solicitation bonus points. The department’s scoring sheet included 0–5 points for disadvantaged/minority/WBE participation (DM/DWE), 0–5 points for county volume of work, and 0–5 points for past performance. The committee then read and confirmed final totals and a ranked list.

The highest final totals announced by the chair were:
- McKim & Creed — 99 points (ranked No. 1)
- Echo UES Inc. — 97 points (No. 2)
- Collier’s Engineering and Design — 96 points (tie)
- Cumbien/Combi and Fair (as listed in proposals) — 96 points (tie)
- George F. Young — 96 points (tie)
- Surveying and Mapping LLC — 96 points (tie)

The committee identified additional ranked firms through the list and recorded the full scoring breakdown for each firm (criteria 1–4 totals, bonus points, and final totals). At the bottom of the final ranking was DC Johnson and Associates, with a final total of 72 points. The chair closed the meeting after instructing staff to post updates through the county’s procurement portal.

Quotes from the record include the meeting opening by procurement staff and the chair’s role in leading scoring: “This is the evaluation committee meeting for RPS 25-00264, professional and miscellaneous services for geomatics,” said Ethan Kersey, the senior buyer assigned to the project. Committee chair Daniel Sullivan introduced himself for the record: “I am Dan Sullivan, committee chairman.”

Next steps: Staff will verify the recorded consensus scores, apply any remaining administrative calculations, and post the solicitation’s evaluation results and future updates on the county procurement portal as the process moves to negotiated task-order awards under the contract. The committee did not take a formal legislative vote in the meeting; it completed an administrative evaluation and ranking under the solicitation process.