Hillsborough County’s evaluation committee recommended a single top‑ranked law firm to represent the county in potential litigation over PFAS (per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances) after scoring four proposals on qualifications, similar‑project experience, organization and approach, and disclosures.

Committee chair Rob Bridal led a point‑by‑point scoring of each proposer. Jacinta “JC” Pinkney, the county senior buyer who opened the meeting, told the record the session was publicly noticed and recorded. “For the record, this meeting is being recorded and has been publicly noticed,” Pinkney said at the start of the session.

Why it matters: The selection will determine which outside counsel will shape the county’s litigation strategy and, potentially, settlement negotiations in a complex, multijurisdictional set of PFAS claims. Committee members prioritized demonstrable PFAS or AFFF litigation leadership, local counsel availability, and clarity about how a firm would organize and staff the county’s matter.

How the scoring played out: Committee members discussed four proposals in sequence, assigning numeric scores for each of the four published criteria plus any applicable small‑business bonus. The record shows the committee recorded consensus totals for the proposers as they read each firm’s combined score (examples from the record: 97 points for one proposer, 85 for another, 100 for one firm identified in the record as “11,” and 90 for the remaining proposer). The transcript also shows that no firm submitted documentation to claim the small‑business (SVE) bonus; the panel recorded zeros for bonus points.

Points of emphasis and dissent: Members praised the firm the panel identified as the top scorer for a combination of national PFAS experience and local Florida presence, and for providing a detailed organizational breakdown of who would perform toxicity research, discovery, and damages analyses. By contrast, the committee lowered scores for some proposers that either emphasized non‑PFAS environmental work (for example, Monsanto‑type matters) or proposed strategic options that could limit their involvement in MDL leadership — notably a proposer that stated it would ‘‘strongly consider remanding cases out of the MDL’’ into local federal courts. Committee members debated the tradeoffs of that remand strategy; one member said remanding could increase the chance a case is tried locally rather than settled in a national framework, while others noted it might reduce a firm’s leadership role in nationwide litigation.

References: The committee reviewed reference contacts listed by proposers. One reference cited in the record (from Middlesex Water Company) described a $52,000,000 recovery related to PFOA for one proposer. Another recorded reference came from Baltimore’s affirmative litigation division praising a proposer’s responsiveness and results on PFAS and PCB cases.

Outcome and next steps: The committee recorded its consensus that the proposer identified in the meeting as “11” was the most qualified at this stage. Chair Bridal was asked to prepare an evaluation summary and email the committee a draft template and the consolidated scoring notes for submission to procurement staff. Pinkney concluded the meeting by reading the RFQ title shown on the agenda and adjourning the session.

Representative quotes from the record: "Just as an overview, I think that... very qualified firms," said the committee chair during the review. Pinkney opened the session saying the meeting was recorded and noticed. Toward the end of the meeting a member stated, "So, it's listed as 11 as the most qualified at this point."

What the record does not show: The transcript does not contain a formal motion and roll‑call vote adopting a final selection; it records a committee consensus and assignment of follow‑up work. The RFQ identifier appears with inconsistent numbers in the transcript (the file was read at the start as RFQ 2600021 and later read as RFQ 250021), which the county procurement staff should clarify in the formal evaluation summary.

Next procedural step: Staff (Rob Bridal) will draft and circulate an evaluation summary to the committee by email for inclusion in the procurement file and any subsequent board presentation or contract recommendation.