Hillsborough County committee completes consensus scoring of eight proposals for federal lobbying services RFP

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, Fla. — An evaluation committee for Hillsborough County reviewed and reached consensus scores for eight firms competing for a request for proposals (RFP RP2500149) for federal lobbying services during a hybrid meeting on March 19, 2025.

The committee, chaired by Beth Cardenas, director of government relations and strategic services for Hillsborough County, used three scored categories (qualifications, past performance and prospective approach; each scored out of 30) plus cost and a small number of bonus points to arrive at consensus rankings. Tracy Edwards, the county's senior procurement buyer, said final consensus scoring will be forwarded to the department as a recap and award recommendation via the Bonfire portal.

Why it matters: The county seeks a contractor to represent Hillsborough County's federal priorities, including transportation, public safety, flood mitigation and coastal storm risk. The evaluation and eventual award will determine which outside firm will carry the county's federal advocacy and appropriations work.

What the committee did The committee reviewed proposals from eight firms, discussing and assigning consensus scores for the three technical categories for each firm, then factoring cost and any bonus points before recording a final total reported by procurement. Beth Cardenas led the committee through each firm alphabetically and announced consensus category scores when committee members converged.

Scores at a glance (consensus scores reported by the committee) - Alcalde & Faye: qualifications 27, past performance 28, prospective approach 27; reported cost component 6.32; reported total 88.32. - Ballard Partners: qualifications 25, past performance 25, prospective approach 25; reported cost component 5.83; reported total 80.83. - Becker & Poliakoff: qualifications 27, past performance 27, prospective approach 27; reported cost component 6.67; reported total 87.67. - GrayRobinson: qualifications 28, past performance 27, prospective approach 27; reported total 92 (cost reported by procurement was included in committee materials). - Pittman Law Group: consensus category scores reported as qualifications 23, past performance 25, prospective approach 21; procurement recorded bonus points of 5 for economic development (MBE/DBE/WBE/SDVOSB notation) and reported a total of 81 (procurement noted the bonus points and cost component when posting totals). - Potomac Partners: qualifications 27, past performance 27, prospective approach 26; reported cost component 6.00; reported total 86. - Reserve Component: consensus category scores reported as qualifications 23, past performance 23, prospective approach 20; reported cost component 6.00; reported total 72. - Thorn Run Partners: qualifications 28, past performance 29, prospective approach 27; reported cost component 6.67; reported total 90.67.

How the scoring worked Committee members said they scored each firm on qualifications, past performance and prospective approach (each category out of 30). Committee members then discussed the range of individual scores aloud and Beth Cardenas called the consensus value when members agreed. Tracy Edwards stated that the cost component is formula-driven and recorded by procurement; she also noted any bonus points (for economic development categories such as MBE/DBE/WBE/SDVOSB) were applied where appropriate.

Members' comments and emphasis Committee members repeatedly noted they wanted clearer timelines or more detail in some firms' prospective approaches; several members praised firms that provided a 30- or 60-day approach and frequent reporting plans. Committee members named the county priorities they expected the vendor to address, including transportation, flood mitigation and coastal storm risk. Digna Alvarez (government relations staff serving as project manager for the meeting) said she would take notes from the executive summaries.

Next steps Tracy Edwards said procurement will forward the committee's consensus scoring and award recommendation package to the requesting department through the Bonfire portal and that the posted information will be available for questions through that portal.

Reporting note The committee's meeting was a consensus, scoring meeting and did not include a formal award vote; the transcript records the committee scores, the procurement cost components and any bonus points as recorded at the meeting. Procurement staff provided the cost numbers and compiled the final totals reported aloud by committee staff during the meeting.