Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Evaluation committee ranks Barrell Project Engineering first in RPS25-00379 A/E procurement
Summary
An internal evaluation committee scored eight proposer teams for RPS25-00379 (A/E services for CDBG single-family housing repair/replacement). Barrell Project Engineering ranked first with 98 points; Cobalt Engineering & Inspections placed second with 96. The committee recorded full criterion scores and asked proposers to monitor solicitation updates.
The evaluation committee for RPS25-00379 reviewed oral presentations and completed scoring of eight proposer teams for professional architectural and engineering services supporting the County's CDBG single-family housing repair and replacement program.
Ethan Kirksey, the buyer assigned to the project, read the final subtotals: "Barrell Project Engineering ranked first with 98 points," followed by Cobalt Engineering & Inspections (96), CSA Central Inc. (90), Jorel McCants Architecture (89), Forefront Architecture and Engineering (86), Innovation Design & Consulting Engineers (78), Sandbar Architecture (70) and Plus LLC (66). Kirksey instructed proposers to monitor the solicitation portal for future updates.
Committee members scored each firm on four solicitation criteria: (1) ability of the firm and personnel (max 35), (2) experience with similar projects (max 25), (3) ability to meet schedule and budget (max 20), and (4) current and projected workload (max 20). The recorder's reading shows the highest-ranked firm, Barrell, received 32/35 for personnel, 24/25 for related experience, 17/20 for schedule/budget and 17/20 for workload, producing the 98-point subtotal. Cobalt's consolidated scores were 32/35, 23/25, 16/20 and 17/20 for a 96-point subtotal.
During deliberations committee members emphasized items that affected scores: local inspection and structural-engineering experience, demonstrated FEMA/HUD and post-disaster program work, clarity in staffing and uptime commitments, the presence (or absence) of in-house architecture capacity, and whether resumes matched projects listed in proposals. Several members raised concerns when a firm's resumes did not clearly link team members to the projects cited in the written proposal; others credited firms that used presentation time to fill gaps in written materials.
The committee repeatedly noted distinctions between multifamily or infrastructure experience and single-family CDBG/DR work; members lowered or withheld top scores for firms whose project lists or staff resumes did not clearly show single-family CDBG or disaster-recovery work. Panelists also factored in demonstrated project controls (scheduling templates, cost-management systems, and references to HUD/CDBG requirements) and explicit backup staffing plans when judging workload capacity.
No formal motions or public votes were recorded during the meeting; this session documented scoring and produced the ranking and subtotals that will be used in subsequent procurement steps. "Proposers, please continue to monitor your unit for future updates related to this solicitation," Kirksey said before adjourning the evaluation portion of the meeting.
Next steps: the procurement office will use the committee's scored rankings as the evaluation record for RPS25-00379; any further procedural actions (e.g., contract negotiations, finalist selection, or award determinations) will be posted through the County's procurement notices and the solicitation portal.
