Hillsborough County committee ranks proposers for RPS26-0000175 bridge engineering contract

Hillsborough County procurement staff convened an evaluation committee to review proposals for RPS26-0000175, a bridge professional engineering services contract, and recorded ranked scores for each proposer.

Ashley Rogerro, the senior buyer for the project, opened the publicly noticed meeting and instructed the committee to evaluate proposals “based on the information provided in their proposal as it correlates [to] the requirements and evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation and not any prior experience with the firm.” She confirmed the meeting was being recorded and that the public could view the session.

Dana Mackey, the evaluation committee chair and section lead for infrastructure engineering services and public works, directed the group to proceed alphabetically through proposers and to state a consensus score after discussion of each scoring category: (1) ability of the firm and its professional personnel; (2) experience with projects of similar size and type; (3) willingness and ability to meet schedule and budget requirements; and (4) recent, current and projected workload.

Committee members discussed each firm in turn, sharing numerical scores and short rationales. Reviewers repeatedly raised two themes: (1) whether a prime consultant was providing sufficient senior staff vs. relying on subcontractors for critical inspection and specialized services, and (2) how clearly organizational charts and resumes demonstrated relevant bridge‑type experience rather than drainage or broader civil work.

For several firms the committee recorded scores and applied bonus points for small‑business participation and past performance. At the close of scoring members recapped totals as read in the meeting transcript (as recorded by the committee): Atkins Realis — 80; (associates entry in transcript) — 91; BCC Engineering LLC — 84; CDM Smith — 87; DRMP — 86; GM2 Engineering Associates — 81; Kissinger Campo & Associates (KCA) — 82; HW Lochner — 81; Patel Green and Associates — 90; Tn International — 89; Vulkar Inc. — 91. Committee members confirmed those totals as the working ranking for the procurement record.

The committee did not take a final award at the meeting. Ashley Rogerro told members that a cone of silence remains in effect and that the notice of intent to recommend award will be posted; the county will observe a five‑day protest period after that notice before finalizing an award recommendation. She directed any questions about the procurement to her in Procurement Services.

The committee chair said the committee memo summarizing the evaluation would be provided; shortly afterward the recording was stopped.

Why it matters: The scoring and ranking produced at this meeting are the primary administrative record that will inform Hillsborough County’s recommendation for the bridge engineering services contract. The five‑day protest window is the next procedural milestone before a recommendation becomes final.