Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Itn topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ITN for Sarasota downtown master plan triggers cone-of-silence; committee names evaluation representative
Summary
City procurement posted an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) for the downtown master plan. Committee members were briefed on a cone of silence, required conflict-of-interest forms and a staff-led evaluation process; the Downtown Master Plan Committee selected Melissa Laughlin as its evaluation representative and Tiffany Nisbett as alternate.
The City of Sarasota’s procurement office posted an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) for the Downtown Master Plan on BidNet on Sept. 19, and the Downtown Master Plan Committee discussed rules and timing for evaluating proposals at its Sept. 29 ad hoc meeting.
Procurement staff told the committee the solicitation (listed on the platform as 25-52RH) is under a cone of silence and that committee members must refer any questions from firms to procurement rather than discuss the ITN directly. “So as of the nineteenth, everyone’s under the cone of silence,” procurement official Renee said. She told members questions about the solicitation should be submitted through BidNet so answers can be posted as addenda for all proposers.
Why it matters: the committee’s members will help shape a consultant-led update to the city’s downtown master plan but must avoid discussing the solicitation with potential proposers until the process advances. That limitation affects how the committee reviews proposals and how the city balances public transparency with fair procurement rules.
Key procurement timeline and process details provided at the meeting included questions due Oct. 10, a public opening on Nov. 3, and an initial shortlist meeting expected in mid- to late November. Staff noted the number of proposals received will determine interview and negotiation dates; interview dates initially shown in the draft timeline were pushed later to avoid conflicting with the Thanksgiving holiday.
Renee also walked the committee through conflict-of-interest guidance and a conflict declaration form that each member must sign before a committee designee participates on the evaluation team. She said procurement will issue addenda to correct or clarify ITN language and that clarifying questions from proposers will be posted on BidNet so all respondents have the same information.
Sunshine-law and evaluation-panel structure dominated the discussion. Committee members asked whether more than one ad hoc member could serve on the evaluation/selection panel. Staff and several members explained that having more than one appointed committee member actively serve on the evaluation panel can trigger broader Sunshine-meeting requirements and limit the city’s ability to conduct private negotiations with shortlisted firms. The adopted approach — reflected in minutes from an earlier meeting and reiterated Sept. 29 — is a hybrid: shortlist and interviews may be conducted as publicly noticed meetings with the selection/evaluation committee serving as the voting body; final negotiations would be conducted privately with a smaller team that includes one representative from the ad hoc committee.
The committee then nominated and voted on its designee for the evaluation/selection process. After nominations and a voice/hand vote in committee, members approved Melissa Laughlin as the ad hoc committee’s evaluation representative to serve with city staff on the evaluation team. They also approved Tiffany Nisbett as alternate.
Staff identified the city subject-matter experts who will serve on the evaluation team alongside the ad hoc representative: Planning Director Steve Cober, Development Services Director Lucia Panaca, City Engineer/Public Works Director Nick Patel, and Sustainability Manager Aliyah Garrett.
Discussion points that did not result in immediate policy changes included how much access the full ad hoc committee would have to proposals during the cone-of-silence period and whether the ad hoc committee should be invited back for a formal check-in if staff shortlists firms. Staff said they will accept questions from ad hoc members for consideration in interview question sets but warned that collecting and managing large numbers of suggested interview questions from many committee members could complicate a fair, standardized interview process.
What the committee decided and next steps: members will sign conflict-of-interest forms and follow procurement direction on communicating about the ITN. Staff will post addenda and timetable updates on BidNet; the committee’s next meeting (Nov. 4 noted on the preliminary schedule) will include an update on how many proposals were received and whether the timeline needs revision. The ad hoc committee will be able to attend shortlisted-firm interviews as members of the public, but only the appointed evaluation representative will participate as a voting member on the evaluation panel and later in the closed negotiation team.
