Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Rfp 2424813 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Evaluation committee ranks Westra first, Kimmins second in scoring for RFP 2424813 pipeline and pump-station work
Summary
An internal Hillsborough County evaluation committee reviewed three proposals for RFP 2424813 on Oct. 18, 2024, found one unacceptable, and recorded scores that placed Westra first (92 points) and Kimmins second (85 points); both firms received five DMDWBE bonus points.
An internal Hillsborough County evaluation committee on Oct. 18, 2024, scored proposals for RFP 2424813, “progressive design build services for loose area pipeline and pump station construction,” recording Westra as the top-ranked firm with 92 points and Kimmins second with 85 points.
Connor Butcher, the county’s senior buyer assigned to the project, opened the session and noted the meeting was recorded and not publicly noticed; he said three proposals were received on Oct. 18, 2024, and one proposal was deemed unacceptable. "Westra was also awarded 5 bonus points for DMDWBE. K. Their total score is 92," Butcher said when announcing the committee’s final tallies. He then summarized: "Westborough ranked 1 at 92. Simmons ranked 2 at 85." (Firm name spellings below reflect how firms were referred to in the transcript.)
The committee evaluated the two acceptable proposals against four criteria set out in the solicitation: ability of the progressive design-build team and personnel; experience with similar projects; approach to meet schedule and budget; and current and projected workload. Committee members discussed and built consensus scores for each criterion rather than applying a strictly mathematical averaging method.
David Lundberg, assistant section manager with Flint Operations, explained the reasoning behind early category scores, saying, "Both of them have plenty of ability and experience doing the same similar things. I gave them both 34," while other committee members described differences in resumes, team organization and proposal detail that produced score spreads in several categories.
After lengthy discussion of relative strengths — including the similarity of past pipe projects, company size and pipe footage installed — the committee settled on per-criterion consensus scores. For the firm recorded as "Kimmins," the committee recorded: criteria 1 (ability) 27; criteria 2 (experience) 21; criteria 3 (approach) 23; criteria 4 (workload) 9; plus 5 bonus points for DMDWBE, producing a total of 85. For "Westra," the committee recorded: criteria 1 (ability) 30; criteria 2 (experience) 25; criteria 3 (approach) 23; criteria 4 (workload) 9; plus 5 bonus points for DMDWBE, producing a total of 92.
Committee members emphasized the scoring process was intended to evaluate each proposal on its own merits against the stated criteria. Members also discussed how schedules submitted by proposers compared with the county’s spend forecast; one member said matching the county’s forecast could justify a higher score even if a proposer offered a faster delivery timeline.
Committee chair Richard Harrison led the scoring discussion and asked members to state consensus scores aloud so Butcher could record them in the scoring spreadsheet. After the committee confirmed consensus scores for each criterion and the two firms’ totals, Butcher said he would verify the scores and provide the ranking of approval and noted updates would appear on the county’s procurement portal. "Stay tuned for additional updates on Bonfire," he said.
The committee did not record a formal award action in the transcript; the record shows consensus scoring and ranking only. The transcript indicates the evaluation process concluded with the ranking and with directions that the recorded scores and ranking be verified and posted.
