Hillsborough County evaluation committee ranks SCS Engineers ahead of Civil & Environmental Consultants in closed‑landfill services RFP

The Hillsborough County evaluation committee for RPS 2000000 425,020 (Professional Services for the Closed Landfill and Solid Waste System) met via communications media technology to discuss, score and rank two submitted proposals and announced a consensus ranking with SCS Engineers first and Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. second.

The committee’s ranking was announced by Lisa Danita, the county’s chief buyer for the solicitation: “Rank 1, SCS engineers, and ranking 2, civil and environmental consultants,” and the committee declined to request oral presentations.

The committee evaluated proposals against seven criteria in the solicitation. For Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc., the committee recorded consensus scores of 40 for ability of firm and personnel (criteria 1), 37 for experience with similar projects (criteria 2), 10 for willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget (criteria 3), and 4 for current and projected workload (criteria 4); procurement-calculated points for criteria 5–7 and past performance produced a total consensus score of 104. For SCS Engineers, the committee recorded consensus scores of 45 (criteria 1), 39 (criteria 2), 10 (criteria 3), and 5 (criteria 4), with procurement and past-performance points bringing the total to 105.

Committee members discussed strengths and weaknesses in each proposal while arriving at consensus. Points raised in discussion included the degree of local staffing on each firm’s proposed project team, the number of Florida‑licensed professional engineers on the teams, and the recentness and documented budgets of project examples.

Members noted that one proposal listed only a single Florida-licensed professional engineer among the prime firm’s staff and flagged Florida’s lack of PE reciprocity as a potential issue for firms relying on out-of-state personnel. Committee members also recorded specific availability concerns: one named team member was shown with 50% availability in a staffing chart, and several reviewers wanted percentages or hourly allocations for key staff roles rather than only general statements of national staffing.

The evaluation discussion referenced quantitative details included in the proposals: one firm described about 1,500 employees nationwide; the other cited roughly 1,300 professionals and multiple Florida offices (Orlando, Sarasota, West Palm, Coconut Creek, Miami). Reviewers praised examples of landfill gas and transfer‑station work, but some members said they would have liked to see more examples involving closure of smaller municipal landfills dating to mid‑20th century operations.

Following scoring, the committee confirmed totals and declined to hold oral interviews. Danita said she would post the meeting recording and prepare a spreadsheet of the consensus scoring for signatures before the committee left the session.

The meeting was procedural: the committee produced a ranked recommendation based on the scoring rubric in the solicitation but did not make a contract award during the session. Next procurement steps (notice of intent to award and contract award) and any cone‑of‑silence limitations will be governed by the county’s procurement rules and the solicitation language for RPS 2000000 425,020.