Council questions consultant scoring method, expands landscape-architecture shortlist

Councilmembers debated the selection methodology for a continuing landscape-architecture contract during the Aug. 18 meeting, questioning whether cumulative numeric scoring can produce unfair outcomes when one reviewer’s outlier score skews averages.

Councilmember Fred Berson said he preferred that selection-panelists individually rank firms rather than submit numeric scores that are averaged, and asked why the cutoff between ranks was made where it was given tight score spreads (for example, the spread between some firms was three points). Procurement and selection‑committee staff explained that solicitations use a published scoring matrix that typically includes two major scoring categories (approach to project and experience), plus procurement‑scored items such as local preference and DBE/MBE participation.

Staff described the standard process: firms submit qualifications and resumes, a selection committee of at least three reviewers scores proposals according to published criteria, procurement scores local preference/MBE factors, and committee discussions are recorded and available to the public. Staff also noted continuing contracts are intentionally broad and that the city chooses how many firms to shortlist based on anticipated workload during the contract term.

After discussion, Berson moved to expand the shortlist to the top seven firms rather than five; the motion carried. Councilmembers suggested the topic would be well suited to a workshop to examine scoring mechanics and whether alternate ranking systems should be used for greater transparency.

No selection award was made at this meeting; staff will update procurement records and the shortlist per council direction.