Commissioners deny SEMCO Construction appeal of solicitation award as untimely

The Osceola Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously Oct. 6 to deny an appeal from SEMCO Construction over the award and shortlisting for solicitation PS-25-14998-LA, a construction-manager-at-risk services pool, after county staff said SEMCO’s formal protest was filed after the five-business-day deadline in the county administrative code.

Procurement Services Director Robert Rosenstein told the board that the solicitation established three separate contractor pools by project cap — $2,000,000, $4,000,000 and $7,500,000 — and that awardees could be assigned work up to their pool cap. Rosenstein said SEMCO had submitted in the $7.5 million pool and ranked 15th of 21 respondents in that pool; the evaluation committee recommended the top seven respondents for award. Rosenstein said SEMCO was notified on June 26, 2025 that it was not selected and that SEMCO sent notice of intent to protest on June 30, 2025 but did not file a formal written protest within the five-business-day window required under Administrative Code section 3.5; Rosenstein said SEMCO’s formal protest arrived July 25 and was therefore untimely.

SEMCO representative Jennifer Hall told the board she and her firm were raising concerns about how the solicitation allowed respondents to select a single pool and whether that structure limited competition. "The original RFQ was somewhat ambiguous in how each contractor had to decide if they wanted to submit for 2,000,000, 4,000,000, or 7 and a half million," Hall said. She asked the county to either rescore and tier submissions by overall score or to re-advertise as three separate solicitations so contractors could choose each dollar category independently.

Staff responded that the solicitation and subsequent addenda instructed respondents to select a single pool and that addenda and answers to proposer questions were published to the county vendor portal and required to be acknowledged in proposals. Rosenstein and procurement staff told commissioners that, while a pool 3 (up to $7.5 million) awardee could be assigned lower-value work, the evaluation and ranking occurred within the single pool the proposer selected.

Commissioner Reed moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the formal protest was not filed within the five-business-day period required by Administrative Code section 3.5-2; a second was called and the motion passed unanimously. The board did not order rescoring or re-advertising at the meeting.

The county record shows: solicitation PS-25-14998-LA; notification to SEMCO on June 26, 2025; SEMCO’s notice of intent to protest on June 30, 2025; and a formal protest submitted July 25, 2025 that procurement staff considered untimely under the administrative code.