Hillsborough County’s evaluation committee finalized the rankings for RFP25-00293, the county’s solicitation for a disaster recovery management program, announcing Ernst & Young as the top-scoring proposer.

Ethan Kersey, the county’s senior buyer who convened the reconvened evaluation meeting, read the committee’s final tallies: “Ernst and Young ranked first with 81.2 points. Horne ranked second with 77.6. Tetra Tech ranked third with 74.8. ICF Incorporated ranked fourth with 72.6. Guidehouse ranked fifth with 67.6. Indelible ranked sixth with 60.1. And then Elite Business ranked seventh with 60,” Kersey said as he confirmed the group’s consensus scores.

Why it matters: the committee reviewed seven proposals and oral presentations, applied the solicitation’s evaluation criteria (50 points for qualifications/experience, 35 for methodology/approach and 15 for cost) and consolidated individual reviewers’ scores into a single ranked list the county will use in its next procurement steps.

What the committee discussed: reviewers repeatedly flagged three themes across multiple proposers — limited end-to-end experience on projects of this size, heavy reliance on subcontractors for key tasks, and questions about on-the-ground staffing capacity. Robert Hendrickson (management and budget) summarized that line of concern during the deliberations: “I would echo just their experience wasn’t at the level we required, and we also heard, from none of their references going through the process.” The committee also noted when firms incorporated prior feedback into their oral presentations as a positive sign of responsiveness.

Scores at a glance (committee consensus totals as read by the senior buyer): Ernst and Young — 81.2 (45 qualifications / 33 methodology / 3.2 cost); Horne — 77.6 (43 / 32 / 2.6); Tetra Tech Inc. — 74.8 (39 / 30 / 5.8); ICF Incorporated — 72.6 (38 / 29 / 5.6); Guidehouse — 67.6 (36 / 27 / 4.6); Indelible Management Solutions — 60.1 (33 / 25 / 2.1); Elite Business Strategies LLC — 60.0 (25 / 20 / 15.0).

Process notes and next steps: Kersey reminded attendees that the cone of silence remains in effect and that scores will be verified and posted according to the solicitation’s procedures. He closed the session by confirming the final scores and adjourning the meeting.

The committee’s deliberations referenced procurement milestones recorded in the solicitation: oral presentations were requested on 2025-09-26, presentations were completed in October 2025, and best-and-final-offers were received on 2025-10-10. The county did not record a formal motion vote; members worked to a consensus on each numeric score before the announcement.

Clarifications: reviewers’ concerns about subcontractor reliance and staffing were recorded in the committee’s notes; where firms addressed those concerns in oral presentations, the committee credited that responsiveness in methodology scores. Cost scores were applied per the RFP’s published scoring method. The meeting concluded with confirmation that the ranking is the committee’s recommendation for the county’s next procurement actions.