Hillsborough County evaluation committee finalizes scores, ranks seven firms for disaster recovery management RFP

Hillsborough County’s reconvened evaluation committee finalized consensus scores and ranked seven firms for RFP RT25SGO0293, the county’s disaster recovery management solicitation, following a round of oral presentations and best-and-final offers in October 2025.

The committee — led administratively by senior buyer Ethan Kersey — agreed on numeric scores for three evaluation criteria (qualifications/experience/capacity; methodology/approach; and cost) and produced a ranked list that the committee will forward to the county board for next steps. "The evaluation committee will now discuss and score the proposals as they relate to the evaluation criteria and requirements set forth in the solicitation," Kersey said at the start of the meeting. He later read the final totals and ranking to the panel and attendees.

Why it matters: the committee’s scoring determines which firms the county board will consider for contract negotiations on a program intended to manage long-term disaster recovery work. Committee members repeatedly flagged staffing capacity, reliance on subcontractors, and experience managing end-to-end projects at comparable scale as the principal factors that affected scores.

The committee followed the scoring weights published in the solicitation: 50 points for qualifications/experience/capacity (criteria 1), 35 points for methodology/approach (criteria 2) and remaining points for cost (criteria 3). During the meeting members compared written proposals, oral presentations and reference checks and adjusted individual numeric scores until a consensus number was read back and recorded.

Committee concerns and discussion points - Several reviewers raised concerns that some firms relied heavily on subcontractors or submitted key staff without detailed resumes, which reduced confidence in their ability to manage all tasks end to end. Committee members cited examples including proposed team bench strength and short-term subcontractor relationships. - Multiple members asked for clearer methodology details around infrastructure planning, construction management and intake/performance monitoring; those gaps depressed methodology scores for some proposers. - The committee noted strong local presence, integrated subcontractor teams and clear articulation of technology and reporting platforms as positive factors that raised scores for other firms. - Members said oral presentations that directly addressed prior committee feedback improved confidence in some proposers. "We have intentionally been very methodical in this approach and thorough, working towards our aim of being as fair as possible in evaluating some of the proposals," said Robert Hendrickson, who spoke for the committee during the session.

Votes at a glance (final committee scores) - Ernst & Young: Criteria 1 — 45/50; Criteria 2 — 33/35; Cost (criteria 3) — 3.2; Total — 81.2 (ranked 1st) - Horn LLP: Criteria 1 — 43/50; Criteria 2 — 32/35; Cost — 2.6; Total — 77.6 (ranked 2nd) - Tetra Tech, Inc.: Criteria 1 — 39/50; Criteria 2 — 30/35; Cost — 5.8; Total — 74.8 (ranked 3rd) - ICF Incorporated: Criteria 1 — 38/50; Criteria 2 — 29/35; Cost — 5.6; Total — 72.6 (ranked 4th) - Guidehouse: Criteria 1 — 36/50; Criteria 2 — 27/35; Cost — 4.6; Total — 67.6 (ranked 5th) - Indelible Management Solutions: Criteria 1 — 33/50; Criteria 2 — 25/35; Cost — 2.1; Total — 60.1 (ranked 6th) - Elite Business Strategies LLC: Criteria 1 — 25/50; Criteria 2 — 20/35; Cost — 15; Total — 60 (ranked 7th)

What the committee decided and next steps The panel finalized scores by consensus and recorded the totals and rankings to forward to the county’s procurement office and board. "If I were to read those in a quarter ranked 1 through 7, it would go as such," Ethan Kersey said while reading the ordered totals at the meeting’s close. Committee members were reminded the cone of silence remains in effect and that the solicitation will be updated on the county’s procurement portal with procedural next steps.

Meeting context The committee heard oral presentations from all seven potentially acceptable proposers after requesting presentations on Sept. 26, 2025; presentations were completed in October 2025 and best-and-final offers were received on Oct. 10, 2025. The scoring discussion covered every proposer in alphabetical order and resulted in consensus numeric scores that will form the evaluative record provided to the board.

The committee’s record of concerns about staffing capacity and subcontractor arrangements suggests the county’s contract negotiations may include more detailed staffing and performance-monitoring requirements, but no contract award or final board action was taken at this meeting.