Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Evaluation committee confirms scores and recommends advancing top seven firms for RPS 206-137
Summary
The committee reviewing proposals for RPS 206-137 (Architecture Engineering Services) confirmed previously recorded scores, applied the county's tiebreaker rules to resolve ties, and by consensus moved to advance the top seven firms to the next procurement phase; no formal roll call vote is recorded.
The evaluation committee for RPS 206-137 (Architecture Engineering Services) confirmed the interview and evaluation scores for the nine shortlisted firms and agreed by consensus to advance the top seven firms to the next stage of the procurement process.
"My name is Joe Wright, and I'm the senior buyer for the project," Wright said as he opened the publicly noticed, recorded meeting and read the scores and bonus points recorded in the committee spreadsheet. Chair Amy Jarman, an architect in capital programs, led the panel through each firm's criterion scores and asked whether any members recommended changes; committee members repeatedly indicated there were none and confirmed prior scores.
The committee recorded ranked totals and placements for each firm. Long and Associates and Wilder Architecture tied with the highest raw totals (104 points each); Wilder and Long were separated using the county's tiebreaker procedure, which compares signed forms, recent volume of work, and weighted evaluation criteria in sequence. Wright reported Wilder's two‑year volume of work as $6,637,187.09 and Long and Associates' as $1,452,215.92; those figures were used in applying the tiebreaker. Other firms reviewed and their recorded ranks included Wegman & Banks (103, rank 3), Baker Barrios Architects (99, rank 4), Fleichman Garcia (97, rank 5), ROE Architects (96, rank 6 after tiebreak), and Renan and Partners (96, rank 7 after tiebreak). ASD SKY (94, rank 9) and Stratus Team (95, rank 8) were also confirmed as previously scored.
After confirming scores, Chair Amy Jarman proposed a motion "to have the top seven firms," naming Long and Associates; Wilder Architecture; Wegman & Banks; Baker Barrios Architects; Fleichman Garcia; ROE Architects; and Renan and Partners as the recommended shortlist. Committee members expressed agreement and the chair characterized the recommendation as the committee's consensus; the transcript records no formal roll-call vote.
Wright closed the meeting with administrative reminders: the procurement cone of silence remains in effect and the notice of intent to recommend award will be posted, after which a five-day protest period applies; during that period all procurement questions must be routed through procurement staff.
What this means next: the committee's recommendation will be included in the notice of intent to recommend award and subject to the five-day protest window. The transcript does not record a formal award or a formal roll-call vote, and it does not specify which procurement office will execute the next procedural step beyond the procurement contact routing noted in the meeting.
Clarifying details: the committee read and confirmed per-firm criterion scores and bonus points recorded in the evaluation spreadsheet; the county's four-step tiebreaker (drug-free workplace form, lowest recent dollars of work, highest weighted evaluation points, further steps) was applied where totals tied; Wilder's and Long's two-year volume-of-work figures (Wilder: $6,637,187.09; Long: $1,452,215.92) are recorded in the transcript and were used to resolve a tie. The transcript records committee consensus to advance seven firms but does not document a mover/second in formal motion language or a roll‑call tally.
