Hillsborough County panel delays scoring of recovered-materials processing RFP, sets June 30 reconvene

Hillsborough County’s evaluation committee for RFP 2,424,791, a solicitation for recovered materials processing facility services, deferred scoring of best-and-final offers and scheduled a reconvened meeting for June 30 to allow committee members more time to review cost proposals, guarantees and property documentation.

The delay followed a virtual reconvened session on which procurement staff and department leaders advised the committee to verify guarantees and ensure “apples to apples” cost comparisons before applying the RFP’s cost formula. Scott Stroman, Director of Procurement, told the panel, “I don't think you're prepared yet,” and urged members not to score until they had thoroughly reviewed the submitted materials and the recording of the presentations.

Committee members said bidders described substantial capital investments tied to their proposals. John Mueller, director for facilities and real estate for Hillsborough County, noted that the proposers “did state that they bought the land in fee simple” and recommended adding deed documentation and any communications with the city water department to the record to confirm site readiness. One committee member summarized the proposals’ capital claims as roughly $60 million and $80 million in investment, figures the panel said should be treated as illustrative and verified where relevant.

A central topic of the discussion was which revenues or benefits the committee may count as guaranteed for the RFP’s cost computation. Stroman advised the committee to rely only on guaranteed items when applying the cost formula and cautioned against accepting post-hoc clarifications that would materially change proposals. He said, “If it's not guaranteed … then you really have to go revert back to that original product. You have to go back to the processing fee because that's guaranteed.” He also warned against counting property-tax estimates as revenue for solid-waste operations, saying, “I would not include the property tax in your revenue. That's really a separate as well.”

Committee members flagged other evaluation variables that need confirmation, including contract-term language (committee discussion showed conflicting references to 25, 15 and other terms in proposer responses) and whether equipment or tonnage claims are enforceable guarantees or contingent on third parties. The panel discussed host fees and marketing-related revenues as examples of items that may be speculative unless stated as guaranteed in the firms’ written proposals.

Staff and procurement clarified the procedures for follow-up information: committee members should contact the chief buyer, Lisa Dimina, individually for clarifying requests that stay within the original RFP scope; staff said they would provide the meeting recording and could make a transcript available. Dimina reminded attendees that the solicitation’s cone of silence remained in effect and outlined its end conditions tied to the county’s notice of intent to award or cancellation.

The committee agreed to reconvene on June 30 to complete scoring, with the expectation that any remaining clarifications that materially change a firm's offer would be handled through the contract negotiation stage rather than by allowing firms to change proposal substance after submission. No formal motion or vote was recorded; the meeting concluded with staff commitments to post the recording and distribute materials for review prior to the June 30 session.

Next steps: committee members will review the recording and proposal materials, contact the chief buyer for narrow clarifications if needed, and return June 30 prepared to apply the RFP scoring criteria and cost formula to determine a recommendation for county decision-makers.