Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Rfp Employee Communications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hillsborough County evaluation committee pauses RFP award after scoring; procurement to verify vendor costs
Summary
An evaluation committee for Hillsborough County reviewed and scored eight finalists for RFP 2,500,230, recording Interact Software as the top-ranked vendor under current assumptions, then paused any award decision after procurement staff said a vendor’s quoted costs must be confirmed as all‑inclusive.
Hillsborough County’s evaluation committee paused any decision to award contracts after its scoring meeting on a solicitation for an employee communications and engagement platform, RFP 2,500,230, because procurement staff must confirm whether a top-ranked vendor’s price includes required features and add‑ons.
Procurement operations coordinator Christie Alessino, who ran the publicly noticed virtual meeting, told the committee the group had completed consensus scoring but would not sign the scoresheet until staff verified cost details. “So, unfortunately, we’re gonna have to schedule another meeting to decide how to proceed,” Alessino said. She said procurement will consult management and publicly notice a follow-up meeting after clarifying whether a vendor’s cost is all‑inclusive.
Why it matters: the platform would serve about 5,600 county employees and is intended for the Communications and Digital Media Department to manage employee outreach, crisis communications and engagement. Committee members said cost clarity is material because the solicitation requires certain capabilities to be included in the bid; if a high-ranked vendor omitted required components from its quoted cost, the cost‑based portion of the score would change and that could reorder the shortlist.
What the committee did: The procurement team reported the solicitation received 10 proposals. After an initial responsiveness review, procurement found submissions from Carahsoft Technology Corp. and Sierra Lustre LLC unacceptable and notified those firms; eight proposals remained for scoring. Committee members discussed each proposal against the solicitation’s published evaluation weights: quality of proposed system (30 points), proposer organization qualifications and experience (30 points), understanding of scope/technical approach/work plan (15 points), total cost (25 points), and a 5‑point DMDWBE bonus (no firms requested that bonus). The committee recorded consensus scores for each vendor in each category and then computed cost and total scores.
Scores and ranking (committee consensus as recorded; cost scores noted as contingent): Interact Software — total 80.27 points (highest under the current cost assumptions); Staffbase — 75.52; Staff/“Osmore”/Osmore Inc. — 71.68; Oxycyon/Oxycion/Oxyscion (as listed in the submission) — 71.00; Axero/Exxero Holdings LLC — 74.05; Mango Apps — 59.49; Intellectics/Intellectx — 62.02; Blue People LLC — 30.21. Procurement emphasized that Interact’s top ranking assumes its quoted cost includes required items; if an add‑on is not included in its base price the cost component and overall totals would change.
Substantive issues raised in discussion: committee members repeatedly flagged areas that would affect fit and total cost — whether vendors included disaster recovery and required certificates, whether hosting and data processing would be U.S.-based (some vendors use AWS or EU hosting options), whether specific integrations (for example Oracle Cloud and SharePoint) were supported, and whether proposals were tailored to Hillsborough County or were more generic. One reviewer noted a vendor supplied only three references where five were required; others noted some vendors presented turnkey, commercial off‑the‑shelf products while a few proposed custom builds that could require longer implementations (one committee member read a custom build timeline as about one year; others noted 4–6 months or 8–12 weeks depending on the vendor).
Next steps: Procurement staff will contact the highest‑ranked vendors to confirm whether the quoted costs include the solicitation’s required capabilities (several committee members identified digital signage, mobile app, surveys, analytics and newsletters among required items). Procurement will discuss budget and next steps with management and will publicly notice a follow‑up meeting for the committee to decide whether to proceed to oral presentations/demos or to move to award once cost inclusivity is confirmed. No final award or formal vote occurred at the meeting.
The committee recorded the consensus scores and adjourned the meeting pending procurement’s cost verification and a publicly noticed follow-up session.
