Fort Myers Beach selection committee ranks top firms for RFQ 2406AD; recommendations go to Town Council April 21

The Town of Fort Myers Beach selection advisory committee on RFQ 2406AD reviewed proposals and approved recommended shortlists of firms across multiple service categories to forward to the town manager and Town Council for consideration on April 21.

The committee — constituted of town staff and department leads — said the RFQ process was delayed after the proposals were due on Aug. 19, 2024 because of hurricanes and staff turnover. Debbie Glavin, contracts and procurement specialist for the Town of Fort Myers Beach, opened the meeting by noting the delay: "This is the selection advisory committee for, the RFQ 24 0 6 AD that was, due last year, August 19, 2024." The committee reviewed scores compiled from individual rankings and moved, by voice vote, to approve the recommended shortlists in each category.

Why it matters: the shortlists will form the pool of firms the town may negotiate with for professional services tied to rebuilding and capital projects. The committee said it preferred keeping broader shortlists in many categories — typically the top five firms — to preserve flexibility given the town's recovery and the variety of funding constraints involved. "So, it was always my contention to try to get that virtual Rolodex and have as as many top ranked professionals as we could without overloading the system," said Frankie Kropatchik, operations and compliance director.

How the committee worked: committee members completed scores individually and staff compiled totals. For many categories, members then confirmed the top-ranked firms aloud and approved the committee recommendations by voice votes; the meeting transcript records repeated motions and unanimous “aye” responses. The committee noted procedural next steps: the contracts manager will forward the compiled recommendations to the town manager, who may review and forward them to Town Council for action on April 21; formal contract awards are anticipated to follow council approval, likely in May.

Votes at a glance (committee recommendations approved at the meeting unless otherwise noted): - Category 101 (Water resources): Tetra Tech; Johnson Engineering; RWA; JR Evans Engineering; Bowman Consulting — approved by committee voice vote. - Category 102 (Architectural design): ADG Architect; K2M Design; GMA Architects; Bert Hill; RG Architects — approved (motion by Mark Ashton; second by Frankie Kropatchik; unanimous aye). - Category 103 (Stormwater): Tetra Tech; Johnson Engineering; CW3 Engineering; Insight; Bowman Consulting — approved by committee voice vote. - Category 104 (Water distribution): Tetra Tech; CW3 Engineering; RWA; Bowman Consulting; Weston/Samson Engineering — approved by committee voice vote. - Surveying services (listed by committee): Coastal Engineering; Johnson Engineering; Tetra Tech; Hyatt Surveying; Haley Ward — approved by committee voice vote. - Category 106 (Landscape architect): Johnson Engineering; Insight; RWA; LJA Engineering; Bowman Consulting — approved by committee voice vote. - Category 107 (Community improvement): Insight; K2M Design; GMA Architects; RWA; Axis — approved by committee voice vote. - Category 108 (Electrical): Johnson Engineering; Tetra Tech; GraphUSA; K2M; Axis — approved by committee voice vote. - Category 109 (Structural): Jezerinac Group (phonetic in transcript); Bolt; Weston; Axis; Forefront — approved by committee voice vote. - Geotechnical/related technical services: committee accepted the top two firms only (Redice [Radice] International Professional Services; Castellanos/ Castellonis) — approved by committee voice vote; committee member Chad Shoots said he did not see sufficient geotechnical expertise for other bidders and recommended limiting acceptance to the first two. - Vertical/other engineering categories (as recorded): Tetra Tech; Insight; RWA; Bowman; AIM Engineering — approved by committee voice vote. - Building services (one agenda entry): Tetra Tech; Cap Government; JR Evans; Castellanos — approved by committee voice vote after a score correction and discussion of capability for permitting-related work. - Transportation: Johnson Engineering; AIM Engineering; Cardano; Traffic & Mobility; Bowman Consulting — approved by committee voice vote. - Category 114 (Planning and zoning): Axis; Tetra Tech; Cordano; Johnson Engineering; Bowman Consulting; LJA Engineering (tie resulted in six firms accepted) — approved by committee voice vote. - Category 115 (Floodplain management): Axis; Johnson Engineering; Cap Government; JR Evans; AIM Engineering — approved by committee voice vote. - Category 116 (Archaeology): no proposals received for the open RFQ category. Committee noted archaeology is specialized and said the town could rely on sole-source arrangements (for example, university-affiliated consultants) as needed; no competitive shortlist was approved for this category. - Category 117 (Environmental assessment): Johnson Engineering; Hans Wilson; AIM Engineering; Haley Ward; Professional Services — approved by committee voice vote. - Category 118 (Marine engineering): discussion initially identified a scoring discrepancy and the committee moved to revisit the category. After reconvening and clarifying scores, the committee approved the revised ranking as Coastal Engineering; Hans Wilson; Dredging Marine; Bolt; JR Evans (committee recorded the revised order and approved it). - Category 119 (GIS): committee paused to correct scoring discrepancies, recessed briefly, then reconvened and approved a shortlist: Tetra Tech; AIM; Axis; Bowman; LJA — approved by committee voice vote. - Category 120 (Historic restoration): committee recorded top five rankings earlier in the meeting and confirmed completion of the shortlists for all 120 categories; recommendations will be forwarded to the town manager and then to Town Council on April 21.

Discussion, directions and next steps: committee members repeatedly emphasized the goal of maintaining a broad pool of qualified firms to support the town’s rebuilding needs and to preserve options across funding sources (federal, state and local). The contracts manager noted that committee recommendations are presented in order of preference; the town manager and council retain authority to direct negotiations or request reconsideration. The committee noted the process is subject to a “cone of silence” while individual rankings were completed. The contracts manager said awards would be expected after council action, likely in May.

Meeting context: the committee said the RFQ covers about 120 categories of services; several categories required tie handling or score corrections during the meeting. Two categories (marine engineering and GIS) were temporarily set aside for review of scoring discrepancies and then finalized after a short recess. Committee members recorded individual numeric scores; staff compiled totals and read rankings aloud for confirmation prior to each approval vote.

The committee adjourned after confirming the compiled shortlists and scheduling the next procedural step: forwarding the recommendations to the town manager and Town Council agenda for April 21. Formal contract negotiations and awards will follow council action.