Hillsborough County evaluation committee ranks firms for RPS2500209, recommends moving to award top three

Hillsborough County’s evaluation committee met to review proposals for RPS2500209, the county solicitation for pavement engineering, subsurface investigation and inspection services, and agreed by consensus to recommend the three highest-ranked firms for contract negotiations.

The committee, chaired by Dana Mackey of Hillsborough County Engineering and Operations Technical Services Division, recorded consensus scores for seven proposers and assigned bonus points before ranking firms. The committee chair and Cybil Tucker, the county buyer for the project, said the county will post a notice of intent to recommend award on Bonfire, allow a five-day protest period, and keep the project under the procurement cone of silence until that period expires. If no timely protest is received, the county will ask the county board to approve negotiations and eventual agreements.

Why this matters: The committee’s rankings determine which firms the county will invite to negotiate a professional services contract that covers pavement evaluation, field and laboratory testing, and related inspection and special-inspection services used on county road and infrastructure projects.

The committee’s scoring and ranking The evaluation panel considered four scoring categories set out in the solicitation — (1) firm and personnel qualifications, (2) experience on similar projects, (3) willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget, and (4) recent/current/projected workload — and awarded bonus points for diversity participation, past performance and volume of work where applicable. The committee recorded consensus scores for each firm and then applied the bonus points listed below. The committee did not take a roll-call vote; members reached a consensus score in each category and the chair recorded the totals.

According to the committee’s summary at the close of the meeting, the top-ranked firms and final point totals (as read into the record) were: a firm listed in the transcript as Tierra Inc (also referred to in one place in the transcript as “ERA”) with 109 points; Arena Engineering with 105 points; and MC Squared with 100 points. The committee then moved to recommend the top three ranked firms for award and negotiation.

Substantive concerns raised during scoring Committee members discussed specific gaps or strengths in proposals while assigning scores. Recurring concerns included: - Missing or unclear documentation for some required special inspections and certifications (committee members specifically noted absences or unclear assignments for traffic control/MOT certifications, certain special-inspection roles, and asbestos/lead-related inspections). Those concerns were raised by committee members including Brad (committee member), Bridal Isler (Hillsborough County, Health Services Division), and others. - Unclear or missing resumes for subconsultants in several proposals; multiple members asked whether listed subs had been switched or whether resumes were omitted (raised by Rhonda and others). - Limited or absent description of backup staffing or contingency staffing plans in the workload/availability sections of some proposals; several members lowered scores where firms did not document backup staffing for unforeseen circumstances (noted by multiple committee members including Brad and Kevin Trimble). - Questions about whether example projects were task-order/continuing-services contracts the county requested, versus single larger projects that did not directly mirror the county’s on-call structure; this affected experience scores for several firms.

Process steps the committee recorded After confirming scores and applying bonus points, the committee agreed the county would: - Post a notice of intent to recommend award on Bonfire and allow a five-day protest period. - Maintain the procurement cone of silence for this solicitation until the protest period expires. - If no protest is filed, forward a written recommendation and the negotiated agreements (after negotiations with the top-ranked firms) to the county board for approval and execution of the contract(s).

What the meeting did not finalize Committee members reached consensus on scores and the committee’s recommendation, but the meeting did not approve or sign any contracts. The recommendation is a procedural step that triggers the posted notice and the five-day protest window. Final contract awards still require successful negotiations and the county board’s subsequent action.

Ending The buyer, Cybil Tucker, closed the evaluation meeting by thanking the committee and proposers and confirming the next administrative steps: the county will post the recommendation on Bonfire, observe the protest period, and then proceed with board-level approval and contract execution if no protest is received.