Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hillsborough County committee scores five firms for Ruskin pipeline design; McKim and Creed leads
Summary
Hillsborough County's evaluation committee met to score proposals for the Ruskin reclaimed-water and Ruskin potable-water pipeline design solicitation. The panel reached consensus scores for five firms, recorded final totals, and confirmed that a department memo will announce the shortlisted firms and begin the five-day protest period.
Ashley Ruggiero, the senior buyer for the Ruskin pipeline solicitation, opened the evaluation committee meeting and said the panel would "evaluate, discuss, and score by consensus the proposals received for this project." The committee reviewed proposals from five firms and recorded consensus scores and bonus points for each.
The committee chair, Justin Fox, an engineer and project manager with Water Resources, led discussion and said the group would "take these in alphabetical order," beginning with Chen Moore & Associates. Panelists debated four scoring criteria — ability of the firm and personnel; experience with projects of similar size and type; willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget; and recent/current/projected workload — then recorded category scores, bonus points and a total for each firm.
After discussion, the committee recorded the following totals (as read into the record by Ashley Ruggiero): Chen Moore & Associates, 93; Kennedy Jenks Consultants, 95; McKim and Creed Inc., 103; Mead and Hunt, 89; and BNA Consulting Engineers, 84. Committee members discussed team composition, PM qualifications, local experience and proposed controls for schedule and budget when assigning scores.
The meeting record shows the committee confirmed category scores and bonus points for each firm and discussed reference checks and staff availability. Ruggiero read back the consolidated scores for confirmation and cautioned that the solicitation requires discussions with no fewer than three shortlisted firms; she said the chair will provide a department memo confirming the shortlisted firms.
Ruggiero also reminded the group that the "code of silence is still in effect until the notice of intent to recommend award 5 day protest period ends," and instructed that all questions must be directed to her. The committee adjourned after confirming the scores and next procedural steps.
Note on speaker identification: the transcript contains an inconsistency in self-identification for the participant labeled S3; the speaker first self-identified as Paul Schaezler (planning section) and later introduced themselves as John Watson (utilities manager). The committee's department memo will provide the official roster; this article uses the first self-identification in the transcript and flags the inconsistency to the record.
