Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Shortlist topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hillsborough County committee shortlists eight firms for architecture and engineering services RPS 2600137
Summary
An evaluation committee reviewing responses to RPS 2600137 reviewed 13 proposals, scored them against four criteria and agreed to invite the top eight firms to 15‑minute question‑and‑answer sessions before recommending a final shortlist of up to five firms.
The Hillsborough County evaluation committee reviewed proposals for RPS 2600137, a solicitation for miscellaneous architecture and engineering services, and on consensus shortlisted eight firms for follow‑up question‑and‑answer interviews.
Jill Wright, the county’s senior buyer, opened the meeting and read the solicitation identifier and public‑notice information. Committee Chair Amy Jarn explained the evaluation process: members would score each firm on four criteria (firm ability and personnel; relevant project experience; willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget; and current/projected workload), plus three bonus categories for small business/economic development, past performance and volume of work.
Committee members discussed each proposal in turn, asking about available disciplines, project manager registrations, past project lists and staffing availability. For example, Ice and Tropics received a consensus total of 28 points after members noted the team’s mechanical strengths but lack of architectural depth; Long and Associates and Wilder Architecture led the field with 104 points each. Across the 13 proposals reviewed, totals ranged from 51 to 104 points.
After staff read the grand totals, the committee debated whether to require formal oral presentations or conduct shorter clarifying calls. Wright recommended 15‑minute, one‑sided question‑and‑answer calls for the top firms, noting there is not a single specific project to frame a longer presentation. The committee agreed to invite the top eight scoring firms to those 15‑minute Q&A sessions, during which staff will ask the same set of questions of each firm. Committee members said they will reconvene after all interviews to determine whether any score adjustments are warranted and to make a final recommendation for up to five shortlisted firms.
Wright read the top eight firms the committee chose to advance: Long and Associates; Wilder Architecture; (Burr) Wagman and Banks Architects; Baker Barrios Architects; Flechman/Fletchman Garcia; Ranin and Partners, Inc.; Row Architects; and Stratus Team (as recorded in the meeting).
Wright also reminded attendees that the procurement process remains subject to the solicitation’s protest timetable: a notice‑of‑intent‑to‑recommend‑award five‑day protest period remains in effect and all questions should continue to be directed to the senior buyer. The committee adjourned after confirming the interview format and schedule for follow‑up discussions.
