Evaluation committee ranks AECOM above Arcadis in RFP for pipeline-failure predictive modeling

The evaluation committee reconvened July 17, 2025, to finalize scores for RPS25-00208, the solicitation for predictive modeling of pipeline failures, and ranked AECOM Technical Services first with 98 total points and Arcadis second with 97, the committee chair said.

The committee chair, Elizabeth Balter, said members reviewed four scored criteria — firm personnel, similar-project experience, willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget, and recent/current/projected workload — and adjusted several category scores by consensus. Ethan Kersey, senior buyer for the Selector project, opened the session and told attendees, "This meeting is being recorded and has been publicly noticed."

The final totals reflect several incremental increases discussed by committee members. For AECOM Technical Services the committee adjusted: Criteria 1 (ability of the firm and its professional personnel) from 32 to an average of 33; Criteria 2 (experience with projects of similar size and scope) from 29 to 30; Criteria 3 (willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget) remained at the top score of 15; and Criteria 4 (effect of recent/current/projected workload) increased from 19 to 20, producing a final total of 98 points. For Arcadis the committee recorded Criteria 1 at 34 (maintained), Criteria 2 increased from 28 to 29, Criteria 3 rose from 14 to 15, and Criteria 4 rose from 18 to 19, for a final total of 97 points.

Committee members explained reasons for increasing particular scores during discussion. They cited personnel experience and demonstrated local capacity as factors for higher scores. One committee member noted AECOM had "more than 20 years experience doing pipeline modeling," and others said Arcadis showed success with recent AI and machine-learning work and referenced a project using a VOTA-based algorithm. Committee members also cited local staffing and perceived ability to meet schedule and budget as a reason for raising scores.

The adjustments were confirmed aloud by the committee chair, who summarized the new scores and stated the updated rankings. The committee did not record a formal roll-call vote; the transcript shows members expressing agreement and raising individual scores until a consensus average was reached. After confirming the scores, the chair closed the reconvened evaluation and asked staff to submit a summary to move the procurement process forward.

Next steps conveyed at the meeting: committee members were asked to submit a written summary of the scoring so procurement staff can proceed with the solicitation file, and members and the public were directed to monitor UNIF for upcoming updates on the solicitation. The committee chair concluded the reconvened evaluation meeting for RPS25-00208.