Hillsborough County evaluation committee records consensus scores on eight proposals for RPS 2424-971; no award made

The Hillsborough County Capital Programs evaluation committee on Oct. 12 reviewed and recorded consensus scores for eight proposals submitted in response to RPS 2424-971, a small-business-enterprise (SBE) set-aside for miscellaneous civil engineering services. The committee did not make an award or vote to recommend a specific firm; scoring will be verified by county procurement staff before any award decision.

The scoring session was led by committee chair Amy Jarman of Capital Programs and convened by Senior Buyer Lisa Demena, who opened the meeting and reminded attendees that “for the record, this meeting is being recorded” and that the procurement’s cone of silence remained in effect. Mansoor Yasir, representing the Capital Program for the Public Works Department, participated in the scoring discussion.

Committee members evaluated each proposal against the solicitation’s published criteria: ability of the firm and its professional personnel; experience with projects of similar size and type; willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements; recent/current/projected workload; volume of work; and past performance review. The group recorded consensus scores for each criterion for all eight proposers during the meeting; the senior buyer said she would verify the recorded scores with the committee after the session and provide a link to the finalized scoring spreadsheet.

Across multiple proposals, committee members repeatedly flagged two themes during discussion. First, several firms presented strong transportation and roadway portfolios but had less demonstrable experience with vertical construction, utility projects (lift stations, pump stations, force mains) and feasibility studies—experience the committee considered directly relevant to the RPS scope. Mansoor Yasir explicitly raised concerns about limited utility experience in at least one proposal. Second, reviewers noted variability in firms’ descriptions of schedule and budget management: some proposals included detailed tracking and QA/QC approaches and personnel backup; others described fewer methods for schedule control or had shorter-duration sample projects that reviewers said did not demonstrate full lifecycle delivery.

The committee’s discussion repeatedly referenced individual project managers and resumes included in proposals while assigning numeric scores by consensus for each evaluation criterion; no formal motion to award a contract was made in the meeting. The senior buyer reminded the group that the cone of silence will end either five business days after the county posts a notice of intent to award the contracts associated with the solicitation or on the date the solicitation is canceled.

The meeting was held using communications media technology with active participation restricted to committee members; members of the public were able to view the session but were required to remain muted with cameras off. After a short break near the end of the session the committee paused the recording and planned to resume to complete final verification steps.

Next steps: procurement staff will verify the consensus scores recorded during the meeting and post the verified scoring records as required by county procurement procedures; any subsequent notice of intent to award will trigger or end the cone-of-silence timeline described by the senior buyer.