[2:36] I'm here, can I get a mic check?

[5:10] Good morning, everyone. We're going to get started in just a moment if you can all mute yourself, please. Thank you.

[5:25] Thank you. It's now exiting.

[5:41] Good morning, everyone. I am Christine Shory, purchasing manager and the meeting facilitator.

[5:47] I would like to call to order this initial evaluation committee meeting for request for proposals RFP number P and C 2130378 P1.

[5:56] Professional Consultant Services for Building Projects at FLL and HWO for the Broward County Aviation Department.

[6:04] The time is 10.06 AM on September 2nd.

[6:10] This meeting is being held through Microsoft Teams, representatives from the county,

[6:14] are physically here in room 430 of the governmental center building east located in Fort Lauderdale,

[6:20] Florida, or they're appearing virtually through teams.

[6:24] Attendees, if you could please mute the microphones on your devices to limit background noise.

[6:30] This is a public meeting and is being recorded by Broward County that video recording will act as the official recording of the meeting.

[6:37] The recording will be made available in the purchasing division website under the RLI RFP repository.

[6:44] Information reviewed by the evaluation committee as part of their evaluation process will also be posted on the repository.

[6:51] This meeting has been publicly noticed. The purpose of the meeting is to determine the

[6:56] responsiveness and responsibility of the proposing vendors. Only those vendors that have

[7:01] been determined by the evaluation committee today to be both responsive and responsible

[7:06] to the solicitation requirements and then shortlisted may then proceed to the final evaluation

[7:12] committee meeting for presentations and ranking. At the time of the solicitation deadline,

[7:17] which was 2 p.m. on May 29, 2026, 11 proposals were received.

[7:24] Meeting attendance is recorded in the following ways.

[7:28] The purchasing division records attendance of county staff physically here in room GC430.

[7:33] All virtual attendees including county staff.

[7:36] If you could please click on the link or scan that QR code in the chat.

[7:41] It's currently listed in the team's chat section, and you can complete the sign-in

[7:45] sheet that way.

[7:46] And for any attendees that cannot access the link or the QR code from the chat,

[7:51] please email the Senior Purchasing Agent,

[7:53] Johanna DeFrancisco at yDFrancisco.org using the subject EC meeting attendance

[8:00] and provide your name, your title, and the company that you represent in the email body.

[8:07] The following are the county's project staff,

[8:10] Johanna DeFrancisco, Senior Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Division.

[8:14] Norman Schwartz is the Project Manager from the Aviation Department.

[8:19] Obere Navas and Alexander Williams are with the County Attorney's Office.

[8:23] James Vose is with the Office of Economic and Small Business Development.

[8:28] Crystal Goss is with the Risk Management Division, and Kirsten Ruse is with the Finance

[8:33] Division of the Aviation Department.

[8:35] We do have a core in present with the following evaluation committee members.

[8:39] Committee members, if you could please say present after your name is called,

[8:44] Stacey Montefusco, Expansion Project Administrator Planning Division Aviation Department.

[8:50] Thank you.

[8:51] Terry Crawford, Expansion Project Administrator of the Planning Division Aviation Department.

[8:55] Present.

[8:57] Thank you, Laura Soto Mayor, Registered Architect, Seaport Engineering, and Construction Division of the Port Everglades Department.

[9:03] What is it?

[9:04] Thank you.

[9:05] Jill Thompson, Construction Project Management Supervisor.

[9:08] Planning and Design section of the Parks and Recreation Division.

[9:13] President.

[9:13] Thank you.

[9:15] And Carlos Acosta Rivera, Deputy Director of the Public Works and Environmental Services Department.

[9:21] President.

[9:21] Thank you.

[9:22] It is the evaluation committees responsibility to review the vendors' signals to ensure solicitation requirements are met

[9:30] and to evaluate those submittals and make a recommendation to award a contract.

[9:35] Each evaluation committee member was appointed by the county administrator to serve on this committee based on their experience.

[9:43] The evaluation committee members are responsible for following the county's established committee procedures to select vendors which provide the services that are in the best interest of the county.

[9:54] At the discretion of the board, the evaluation committee members may be requested to substantiate.

[10:00] Okay, their recommendation, and discuss their seminal reviews. In accordance with Broward County procurement code, each evaluation committee, member must affirm that they are free of conflicts of interest as provided by Part 3 of Chapter 112 of the Florida Statutes and the Broward County Employee Code of Ethics.

[10:18] All evaluation committee members, as well as the project manager, have submitted the required Broward County Disclosure Forms and responded that they can be fair and impartial to all vendors.

[10:28] The Cone of Silence has been, in effect, since the solicitations advertisement, vendors are prohibited from discussing the solicitation with the Commissioner's office, county staff or a member of the evaluation committee.

[10:41] The Cone of Silence will terminate once the awarding authority takes action to end the solicitation.

[10:48] During the cone of silence, inquiries regarding this solicitation should be directed to the project manager or to the director of purchasing and or his designation.

[10:58] Also, vendors may communicate with designated representatives from the Office of Economic and Small Business Development at any time regarding this solicitation's small business enterprise or county business enterprise participation.

[11:11] The summary of Ender Rights regarding Broward County competitive solicitations was issued in the solicitation.

[11:20] Broward County will be utilizing a consensus approach to provide a summarized group consensus evaluation score during the final evaluation committee meeting.

[11:31] At this time, the purchasing agent will report on the findings of responsiveness and responsibility,

[11:36] and identify if any exceptions were taken to the county's standard terms and conditions.

[11:44] Thank you.

[11:48] Proposals were received from the following vendors.

[11:51] Ramello, a general, and partners LLC, CSA Central Inc, EXP, U.S. Services Inc, U.F.T.

[12:01] Infrastructure Inc, Brisbane Smith, Gourry Methodic PA, HDR Engineering Inc,

[12:08] Justing Architects, PA, Michael Baker International Inc, Solts, Macdonaldsson, Architects Inc,

[12:18] The solicitation had to responsiveness requirements involving compliance, criminal, history, screening, practice, certification,

[12:26] lobbyist, registration, certification. All 11 vendors were found responsive to all the responsiveness requirements by the purchasing division.

[12:35] The solicitation had six areas of responsibility requirements, affiliated entities of the

[12:43] principles, financial information, financial ability, insurance requirements, license requirements,

[12:50] litigation history, office of economic and small business development program requirements.

[12:57] All 11 vendors provided the required documentation for the evaluation committees reviewed

[13:02] for responsibility.

[13:04] HDR engineering in initially did not disclose

[13:07] a case that was identified by the

[13:09] country attorney's office litigation review.

[13:12] In response to the 48-hour draft director of

[13:16] purchasing memo, HDR engineering submitted a

[13:21] revised litigation history form, including an

[13:23] explanation of the case.

[13:25] The country attorney's office acknowledges HDR

[13:27] engineering in response and considers it to satisfactory address the litigation-related

[13:35] issue. Additionally, the country-turned-office litigation-review memorandum identifies further

[13:42] explanations. Further explanation is warranted on the litigation history disclosed by

[13:49] BSA Central Inc.

[13:51] Gressham Smith, Gwary, Metary, PA, Justin Architects, PA, Salt, Nutrition Architects, and

[13:58] Stratistim LLC.

[14:00] In response to 48-hour memorandum, the Director of Purchasing memorandum, CSA Central Inc.

[14:08] and Gressham Smith provided additional information regarding the litigation history.

[14:14] Refer to the Director of Purchasing memorandum for additional information.

[14:24] The solicitation requires vendors to state whether they accept our county's standard terms and condition,

[14:33] or if they do not accept them to identify the agreement provisions and vendors proposed changes.

[14:40] Seven of 11 vendors accepted the county standards terms and conditions without exceptions.

[14:46] The following vendors initially took exceptions to the county standard terms and conditions.

[14:52] Ramello, Argymil, and partners LLC, GFT, Infrastructure, Ink, Resonance, Smith, Buryment.

[15:01] All vendors were given the opportunity to waive their receptions prior to the initial evaluation committee meeting.

[15:09] The following vendors waived all the exception state.

[15:12] Ramello, Jamello, and partners LLC, GFT, Infrastructure, Inc, Resonance, Smith, the Ramell2DPA.

[15:21] This concludes Richardson's remarks and is presented for the consideration of the Evaluation Committee.

[15:29] Thank you. Are there any questions before we move forward?

[15:37] Okay. The next order of business is to determine vendor responsiveness as defined in the procurement code section 21.4A.

[15:44] Is there any discussion from the evaluation committee regarding the determination of responsiveness?

[15:53] Seeing hearing none, may I have a motion with respect to the responsiveness of the vendor's submittals?

[16:03] Jill Thompson, I would like to make a motion to find all vendors as responsive to solicitations responsiveness criteria.

[16:13] Thank you, may I have a second.

[16:20] Please in my fiscal second.

[16:22] Thank you. All those in favor say aye?

[16:25] Aye. Aye.

[16:28] Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

[16:33] The next order of business is to determine the responsibility of the vendors as defined

[16:38] in the procurement code section 21.40B. Is there any discussion from the evaluation committee

[16:43] regarding the responsibility of the vendors? Ms. Monofusko?

[16:49] Heather, I have a question regarding the financial responsibility based on the memo that was

[16:57] provided regarding Gesset.

[17:06] Kirsten, can you hear Ms. Monifusko's question?

[17:12] No, I was not able to hear it.

[17:14] Okay, I'll repeat it for you.

[17:15] She was asking for additional information regarding the financial review as it relates to CSA central.

[17:22] if she could get some more information on that. In terms of what?

[17:31] In terms of your

[17:31] right up about their financial ability, I don't know what the right term is. In

[17:40] your memo, you wrote about CSA essentially.

[17:46] Yes, they have a current ratio that's

[17:50] below one so that may indicate that they may not be able to meet their short term

[17:56] financial obligation does

[18:04] that help I mean yeah for the memo it says the company is

[18:07] in financial trouble as its obligations need its assets though there could be

[18:12] an issue like she said financial trouble with me okay

[18:19] any other questions before we

[18:22] move into the motion sure I want to clarify on the litigation component that

[18:30] stratus all that stratus was also a company that didn't provide any exceptions to the

[18:35] terms of the agreement, and even after the memo did not provide any exceptions to the terms.

[18:41] So we don't know where they stand with the terms of the conditions of the agreement.

[18:50] So the question is whether or not stratus disclosed all cases?

[18:55] No, not quick cases.

[18:56] Whether or not they had any questions?

[18:57] Oh, I'm sorry, exceptions.

[19:01] When the vendor does not meet a form declaring any exceptions, that's it.

[19:09] It means that they are accepted now.

[19:11] Thank you.

[19:16] Any other questions on exceptions or litigation history or financials?

[19:23] Any questions at all?

[19:27] Then hearing none of that no additional.

[19:30] May I have a motion with respect to the responsibility of the vendors?

[19:36] I would like to make a motion to find all vendors as responsible to the solicitations

[19:42] responsibility criteria.

[19:43] Let me have a second.

[19:49] Still Thompson a second.

[19:51] All those in favor say aye?

[19:53] Aye. Aye. Aye.

[19:59] There were none opposed.

[20:00] Use that motion passes unanimously.

[20:04] So, the next order of business is to determine the vendors that

[20:07] were found to be both responsive and responsible. May I have a motion with respect to the vendors

[20:12] determined to be both responsive and responsible?

[20:22] I would like to make a motion to find all vendors

[20:24] as both responsive and responsible to the solicitations requirements. Thank you. May I have a second?

[20:34] Thank you, all those in favor say aye.

[20:37] Aye.

[20:40] None opposed that motion passes unanimously.

[20:45] So the solicitation specified that Robert County was seeking up to three

[20:49] professional consultants to provide the specified services.

[20:53] The director of purchasing recommends short listing in accordance with the

[21:03] and then score a rank only the shortlisted vendors or two score and rank all responses.

[21:10] Finally, in accordance with the Florida statute for Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act,

[21:15] there shall be no fewer than three responsible vendors evaluated. However, the evaluation committee

[21:22] determines the final number of vendors to shortlist. Shortlisting is based on the evaluation

[21:28] committee's evaluation of the vendors' entire submittals, including responses to the evaluation

[21:34] criteria. Is there any discussion regarding shortlisting?

[21:43] Ms. Thompson?

[21:44] Good morning. Based on review, I feel that 11 applicants, based on three slots, shortlisting

[21:55] could be a viable alternative.

[21:59] Do I need to recommend the number at this point?

[22:02] Yeah, that's what you would probably discuss the number.

[22:06] It's too short.

[22:07] I would be comfortable listening to six.

[22:09] I don't know how you feel about it as a using agency.

[22:13] I think we would be comfortable with either four or five.

[22:16] I don't know.

[22:20] I think five is okay.

[22:24] For three slots?

[22:28] So now you would, if there's no further discussion, then someone can go ahead and make a motion for what you feel is an adequate number

[22:36] for a potential award of up to three.

[22:41] Thank you.

[22:44] Terry Crawford, I would like to make a motion to short list five vendors to move forward to the final evaluation committee meeting for presentations and ranking.

[22:55] Thank you.

[22:56] May I have a second?

[23:00] Thank you, all those in favor say aye.

[23:03] Aye. Aye.

[23:06] Aye.

[23:06] Thank you, there were none opposed.

[23:08] That motion passes unanimously.

[23:11] The evaluation committee will now shortlist the vendors.

[23:14] This is going to just take a moment.

[23:17] Mrs. DeFrancisco is going to prepare the ballots and send them over to the evaluation committee.

[23:22] So I'll keep talking in the meantime to stall.

[23:24] The evaluation committee members will be emailed a ballot link to select the vendors to shortlist.

[23:31] The number of vendors to shortlist is a total of five.

[23:36] Once all committee members submit their shortlist ballots back to purchasing,

[23:41] I will briefly recess the meeting to allow purchasing sometime to tally those ballots.

[23:46] When purchasing notifies me that they have completed that tally,

[23:50] I'll then reconvene the meeting and purchasing will read the short listing results.

[23:55] Are there any questions?

[24:02] So the ballot is being prepared and will be sent momentarily if everyone can remain on mute.

[27:09] Committee members, you can now begin scoring and the purchasing division will notify me once they have received all ballots and are ready to tabulate. Thank you.

[33:38] The short list ballots have been submitted, and we will now take a recess. The time is 1033. We are now in recess. If you could please remain on mute, we should be back to you momentarily. Thank you.

[36:13] I'd like to reconvene the meeting. The time is now 1036,

[36:19] purchasing. I'm going to take down the

[36:21] meeting recess. And if you want to share the results.

[36:27] The

[36:58] shortlisted vendors are as follows.

[37:03] Vermello, Ajamell, and partners L.L.C.

[37:07] Grassham Smith, HDR Engineering Inc.

[37:13] Just in architects PA, Michael Baker International.

[37:21] Thank you.

[37:22] On the screen are the five shortlisted vendors.

[37:26] May I have a motion to accept the name

[37:28] vendors as those shortlisted.

[37:42] Bill Thompson, I would like to make a motion to accept the named vendors to proceed to final

[37:46] evaluation.

[37:49] Are you?

[37:50] I'm just saying, excuse me, we're going to need to put you on mute, we're in the middle

[37:57] of a motion.

[37:59] I'm sorry, Mrs. Thompson, can you repeat that?

[38:01] Yes.

[38:03] Bill Thompson, I would like to make a motion to accept the named vendors to proceed to final

[38:07] evaluation and ranking.

[38:08] Thank you. May I have a second?

[38:16] Thank you. All those in favor say aye.

[38:19] Aye. Aye.

[38:21] Thank you. That motion passes unanimously.

[38:25] The final evaluation committee meeting will be held on Monday, September 28th,

[38:30] in 2006 at 9 a.m. and will include vendor presentations. Now the evaluation committee establishes the length of those presentations.

[38:41] That time does not include an unlimited question and answer period. Is there any discussion regarding the vendor presentation length?

[38:56] 15 to 20 minutes. 15 per forably.

[39:06] Okay, somebody want to make a motion as to the length.

[39:12] Jill Thompson, I'd like to make a motion to set the length of presentations at 15 minutes.

[39:17] Thank you. May I have a second? I will second.

[39:21] Carlos. Thank you. All those in favor say aye.

[39:26] Thank you.

[39:27] That motion passes unanimously.

[39:32] As established, each vendor will have 15 minutes for their presentation followed by an unlimited question and answer session.

[39:41] Additionally, vendors will have five minutes previous to their presentation to do their setup in the team's meeting.

[39:48] At this time, the purchasing agent is going to use a random list generator to determine the order of the vendor presentations.

[39:55] She's going to show that on the screen momentarily.

[40:23] Okay, here on the screen is the random list generator. Go ahead, Mr. Defrancisco.

[41:03] panel and partners LLC.

[41:08] Thank you if you can keep that up for just a minute, maybe maximize that.

[41:12] Committee members, is there any other business that needs to be discussed today?

[41:20] I want to thank

[41:21] all of the vendors that responded to our solicitation. We appreciate your time and interest in

[41:26] working with Broward County. The time is 1041 AM and this initial evaluation committee meeting is a

[41:33] Thank you.

Initial Evaluation Committee Meeting: RFP No. PNC2130378P1 Professional Consultant Services for Building Projects at FLL and HWO

Agenda

Transcript