Hillsborough County committee scores eight proposals for RPS 2424-971 civil engineering services

The Hillsborough County Capital Programs evaluation committee met by remote communications media technology to discuss and record consensus scores for eight proposals submitted to RPS 2424-971, a small-business-enterprise (SBE) set-aside for miscellaneous civil engineering services for the county’s Capital Programs Department.

Committee Chair Amy Jarman led the panel through each firm and the scoring rubric, which the committee read aloud at the start: Criteria 1, ability of firm and its professional personnel (35 points); Criteria 2, firm’s experience with projects of a similar size and type (35 points); Criteria 3, willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements (15 points); Criteria 4, recent/current/projected workload (15 points); Criteria 5, volume of work (5 points); and Criteria 6, past performance review (5 points). The panel evaluated proposals by consensus and recorded the agreed scores after each category discussion.

Senior buyer Lisa Demena opened the meeting and reminded attendees that the session was being recorded and that the procurement “cone of silence is still in effect,” adding that it would end the earlier of five business days after the county posts a notice of intent to award or the solicitation is canceled. She also said the recording would be available after the meeting concluded.

Committee members discussed each submission in alphabetical order and reached consensus scores for multiple criteria on each firm. For example, Advanced Engineering & Design Inc. received a consensus score of 29 for Criteria 1 (ability of the firm and its professional personnel), 27 for Criteria 2 (experience with similar projects), 12 for Criteria 3 (schedule and budget approach) and 12 for Criteria 4 (workload availability). The firm’s proposal was described as having experienced personnel and a project manager with floodplain-management certification, but committee members noted limited Hillsborough County-specific experience.

The firm identified in the record as ALFA (submitted under similar firm name stylings in the materials) drew varied commentary about breadth of experience and subconsultant depth; the committee recorded a consensus of 24 for Criteria 1, 22 for Criteria 2, 11 for Criteria 3, and 12 for Criteria 4. Aurora (recorded in the packet as Aurora Civil/related firm) earned some of the highest category scores in committee discussion, with a final consensus near the top of the rubric for Criteria 1 and Criteria 2 and consensus scores of 13 for schedule and 13 for workload in the segments reviewed.

Other proposers discussed by name in the meeting included a firm recorded as Baylor/“Baylor United Engineering Consultants,” Atlantic Engineers, and others. Committee members frequently noted when a firm’s experience skewed toward transportation-only projects or toward stormwater rather than the broader mix of horizontal site development and vertical construction the RPS contemplates; those scope mismatches often lowered scores in the experience and schedule categories.

Committee members also reviewed available staffing bar charts and prior workload projections in the proposals to determine each firm’s ability to accept additional county work. Where proposals showed limited backup PE coverage or short-duration representative projects, members reduced scores or flagged that more detail would be needed for contracting.

The committee paused for a short break near the middle of the session and resumed to finish the remaining evaluations. After the scoring discussions concluded, the senior buyer said she would verify the recorded scores with the committee and provide her spreadsheet link.

No formal awards, motions or final contract decisions were made during the meeting; the committee’s role in the session was to review, discuss and record consensus scores for the proposals so the procurement office can proceed with the next steps of the solicitation process.

Two administrative notes from the start and close of the meeting were repeated by staff: public attendees were admitted to view but required to remain muted and off-camera, and the meeting recording would be made available after the session ended. Lisa Demena summarized the procurement timeline constraints: “The cone of silence is still in effect and shall end the earlier of 5 business days after the county posts its notice of intent to award the contracts associated with the solicitation or on the date the procurement solicitation is canceled by the county.”

The county procurement office will use the committee’s recorded consensus scores as part of its evaluation and recommendation process; the transcript shows the committee completed scores for all eight proposals but does not include a final notice of intent to award or other binding procurement action within the meeting record.