Good afternoon. We will go ahead and call this audit selection committee meeting to order. At this time, we will have invitation by Pastor Alonzo Malberry, pledge allegiance by Mr. Alexander, followed by roll call. >> God bless you, Father. Again, we thank
you for this day. We thank you for your love and kindness and your tender mercy. We thank you, dear God, for every opportunity that you've allow us to come together to share. We pray God that you would give wisdom in this meeting, for this time, in this setting. We ask God
for the governance of your will to be done in this meeting and your pleasure to be made manifest in this meeting. Keep us God in Jesus name. Amen. >> Amen. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Sheffield, >> present.
>> Mr. Dolan, >> present. >> Mr. Alexander, >> present. Commissioner >> presence. We do have a quorum here in the chambers and we will proceed. At this time I'll have an approval of the minutes from our March 4th, 2026
meeting. Couple comments. >> Yes, sir. Go ahead. Um, there is no exhibit A attached that's referenced in the minutes that I could see. um in regards to
uh the duties Miss West informed us of last meeting extending beyond today's meeting. So if I could just know as a reminder what that was or should be reflected in the minutes I believe
>> I don't know why those were not attached but I can pull those additional duties up. I don't have them uh right here at this moment. So that might have to be something that I'll get to you Mr. Alexander after the meeting. >> Sounds good. Then the only other
feedback was on the proposed framework. I thought we discussed having some information for us to consider today in regards to backgrounds and other from the submittals and I don't see that reflected in the minutes. Miss Pierre,
>> it's not reflected in the minutes, but it was mentioned the top three firms, the top scored three firms. I would be doing a background on those top three. >> Does that answer the question or not? I mean, >> not to me. I thought we were going to have conversation about the information
you gleaned from the conversations. I thought that was last meeting's dialogue. I believe it was a mis um understanding, but I could um go back to the video and make get the notes from or get the uh
>> I think I sent you an email too last week. I received your email >> and I believe I responded to your email. >> But my my point of clarification is that at the meeting I mentioned that we would receive the proposals and the top three
scored firms would be the firms that I would do a background check on. That's the point of clarification that I'm are trying to clear up on because I it seems like you're expecting the six uh background to be performed on all six
and I'm saying I mentioned at the meeting that I'm I I mentioned I would do the top three top scored three >> perhaps. I'm just confused how we would consider any of that feedback if we don't have it. >> We haven't scored them yet. So once once
they've been scored and we've recorded the scores for each proposal then I we would know the top three scored proposals at that point >> and when will we >> and I would conduct in our schedule in your folder there's a schedule for
request for proposal timeline there's a uh section for May 6 top rank firms verification phase that's what I'm referring to where I would bring bring feedback on the background. >> Just for a point of clarification with regards to the reflection of the minutes
that information would not have been provided in the minutes that information will be provided for the next meeting minutes if that is something that we are discover that we are to discuss today. So as far as meeting um purposes minutes purposes that would not have been reflected in the minute meeting in the
minutes from that meeting. >> Were there were there any other questions about that? So there has been Miss West uh is going to provide the additional information as requested uh by Mr. Alexander um with
regards to the uh duties as displayed. Go ahead, Mr. West. Actually, now that I've had the opportunity to review that part of the minutes, um, all that was referenced in the minutes was that I explained that the attached exhibit A
was not part of the packet that was originally distributed to you. Um, I did read it in whole, but you what you're saying is you would like that also in writing. So, okay. No, no problem. You can get that. any additional information that is needs
to be brought up with regards to the minutes outside of what Mr. Alexander has mentioned. All right. May we move forth with a motion giving the uh additional information as requested. >> So moved.
>> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and it's been properly seconded. All in favor of approval of the minutes with the additional information that is to forth come. Uh why uh that is to forth come do so by saying yay.
>> Yay. >> Any of those that oppose do so by saying nay. Hearing none. Motion to approve minutes from our March 4th 2026 meeting. At this time we're going to move forth with our public comment. Do we have
anyone here for public comment? Seeing that we're here amongst ourselves, I will take that as a no and we will move forward to presentations by Miss Pierre. >> I don't have any presentations at this time. >> All right, let's keep this show moving.
At this time, we'll have any reports. >> No reports at this time. >> No reports. We'll move forth with our regular uh business uh conflict of interest verification. within your uh folder, Chairman Campbell, there's a
a um conflict of interest um verification sheet pocket of the folder. >> Yes. Well, well, at the top it should say conflict of interest verification.
You don't have it. I I have it on the left side of it was on the left side of the interior uh folder behind >> you got it. >> Okay. Before we I guess I'll read this or Okay. Before we proceed with today's
agenda, we need to complete the conflict of interest verification for all the audit selection committee members. Each of you has been provided a conflict of interest disclosure form. U Miss Hayes, would you mind passing out the uh forms
there? >> Uh if you don't mind just passing them out. So this disclosure is required to confirm that no committee member has any personal, financial or professional interest that would that could influence or appear to influence the evaluation of
proposals. Completing this form ensures we are operating in full compliance with city policy, ethical standards, and procurement regulations. All forms must be turned in before the conclusion of this meeting. If you have any questions about what constitutes a conflict or how
to complete the form, please let me know so we can address them before moving forward. Thank you for your cooperation and for maintaining the integrity and transparency of this selection process. Thank you, Miss Pierre. And again once
uh if there are any uh conflicts of interest do so get this filled out and immediately submitted to uh Miss Pierre prior to the closing of this meeting. All right. Uh here we are. We're going to move forward to the guidelines of the
evaluation discussion. Okay. So, in your packet, there is a document on the left side that's labeled onepage evaluator guidance sheet. And that's just to highlight
the the process, the purpose of all evaluators conducting um scoring in a fair, transparent, and legally compliant manner consistent with the Florida sunshine law and public records law. for the evaluation responsibilities where
each of you were given the opportunity to independently um score based on the solely on published evaluation criteria. And today uh the next topic we will be discussing in the sunshine meaning only
during a public meeting where we discuss the scoring and we maintain in partiality and professional objectivity to protect the integrity of the evaluation process. Just some things to consider as we go move into the
discussion. The information the it is important that we stick to the information that is contained in the proposals and the agenda the clarifications issued um formally by the procurement office. Well, we don't
have a procurement office that's finance. the um criteria based facts um which are qualifications experience their auditing approach the scoring weights and instructions that were included in your packet. So it's
important that um during our discussion that we don't reference any any internal knowledge, rumors, prior um private experience. We don't um we maintain a cone of silence and consider um do not
consider unpublished criteria and we do not negotiate, revise the scope or suggest future contract terms during the scoring and we won't allow political influence or external pressure to affect our the scores. Any questions
regarding >> So let me ask this question. I just want to ask this question. I know that we are a committee of five. We only have four that is present in the chambers. How are we to I know that we have a quorum moving forth, but I just want to make
sure that we adhere to anything should we come to a point where a split needs to be made just in case that does happen. I'm not saying that it will happen, but how would that be addressed being that we are a committee of four?
>> So, I do have a memo and the evaluation criteria scoring sheets from Linda Meyers. Um, I can read the memo or at least the first part of it now. Um, if that would Yeah. So this was addressed
to you as well. If uh and uh Miss Cardi and Chantel and myself from Linda Myers, the committee member, I am unable to present in person at the next meeting April 28th due to emergency health issues of a family member. I will
attempt to participate if Zoom is available for this meeting, but she's still not on, is she, Karen? >> Okay. So included with this memo are two score sheets, option one and two, based on the potential of any respondents disqualification due to not meeting the
mandatory elements. Um she goes into this part of the memo as um her determination that several of the respondents were disqualified. I don't know if you want me to go into that. >> We can How do you want us to handle
that, Miss Pier? Once we start the conversation or as we start the conversation that works. >> That's fine. I just wanted to let the record reflect and should we get to a point where there is a draw um how would we but we have a response. So >> we have her scoring criter
so we're all on the same page. So the how the scoring is going to work each evaluator has completed their score sheet already. You'll be called upon to read aloud during today's meeting. You're it is
optional that you can explain the scores but only by referencing the what's in the proposal what's in the evaluation criteria. And then the final will be calculated publicly and included in
>> that's just the process for >> understandable. All right. So are we ready to move forth with the announcing of the RFP evaluation scores? >> Yes. >> Committee has
>> we go to the DQ first to make it short and sweet. We are now moving forward with the score announcement portion of the evaluation. Each committee member will announce their scores by the proposer including the individual score of each
evaluation criteria and the total score followed by the brief rationale tied to the rubric. Please keep comments concise and objective. After announcing, submit all score sheets, notes, and supporting
documentation to the record official, the recording official. All right. At this time, we will move forth with our announcement. We will proceed with the following order. Miss Linda Meyers, Mr. Alan Sherfield, Mr. Jeremy Alexander,
Mr. Tom Donlin. Did I say that correctly? Dolan, I'm sorry. >> And I When it is your turn, state your name. Identify the proposer. Read each criteria and name and the score you
assign. State the total score. Provide brief rubricbased rationale. >> Okay. So, speaking on behalf of Linda Myers, if you're finished with that, >> I am. Go ahead. >> Okay. I I think it's important to um preface her
um scoring criteria with the remainder of the memo that she sent as a cover letter. Included with this memo are two score sheets, option one and two, based on the potential of any respondents disqualification due to not meeting the
mandatory elements. As per my review of the RFPs, both respondents one and three did not submit the contract three years and two optional renewal years in the compensation section. I am not sure this will be deemed a disqualifier. I did
review the entirety of both. Their scores are included in the option one score sheet. Their scores within the compensation category reflect a three-fifths of the total available points which were reduced for respondent one due to non-inclusion for comparison
purposes of the cost of the single audit. I did note the completed RFPs of respondent five and six submitted five years of compensation. However, they listed the five years incorrectly. I believe this is a scrivener's error and
therefore their scores are included on both scoring sheets. I appreciate the opportunity to review the RFPs and thank each of the firms for their willingness to support the needs of our city and applaud them for their achievements. So,
I think we probably need a little bit of guidance on disqualification um because that will determine which scoring sheet of Linda Meyers I am to use, option one or option two.
>> So, may I Okay, so based on the evaluation criteria at the on the top, did you mind pulling that up? the um evaluation criteria. There's mandatory elements that are required in the RFP
and the mandatory elements in that first paragraph. As long as the proposer provided those mandatory elements, they would not be disqualified. They would um their application would um not be
rejected if they included all of the mandatory elements. Does that answer your question as far as which one to use? So with there if as so long as the proposers
included all the elements which in my professional opinion they did. >> I guess my only comment is the last sentence >> the fifth one. Yeah. >> Yeah. Is the one that's relevant to me and it's the same reason I I picked them for DQ as well. I have one additional but
So okay. So I believe you have the right to make that decision. That's your role as being a audit solid se selection committee member. So if you believe that the propo proposer did not um provide
the mandatory elements, you have the right to not give them a score or I mean that's your your choice. I'm just giving you as an adviser. My role as the advisory and in my professional opinion all of the proposers provided all of the
element mandatory elements. Just to for clarification the um mandatory elements are that there was no conflict of interest with regard to any other work performed by the firm for the city of Palaca.
that the firm submitted their most recent external quality control review report peer review. The firm has no record of has a record of quality audit work. The firm adheres to the instructions in this request for
proposal on preparing and submitting the proposal. >> Okay. So given your advice and uh determination that they have all met the mandatory criteria, I am going to read the results of Linda Myers's option one,
which includes a scoring for all six submissions. Do you want me to go um based on respondent number one and just go across with the scoring? >> Just point of clarification if you don't mind. I thought she said that it was the
board's decision and not hers. >> Okay. >> I mean, I I thought that's what I heard. >> Yeah. Um, >> I'll defer I'll defer to however you want me to handle it. I'm just reading the scores. >> I would open up the floor for any conversation um deemed necessary from the committee.
>> I have one and three also marked off as DQ and I have a different reason for number two, which would make this a very short meeting if if you'd want me to speak on two as well, depending on the will of the board. Number two specifically was asked regarding peer
review to submit your most recent and it says 2019 in their packet packet. Then they include a 2023 review and then it says in that 23 review the next one is due before the end of 25 and it is not in the packet. So I feel like that's a blatant um requirement they've missed.
So >> I have a DQ for entirely different reasons. >> I don't think it's tri error. >> Go ahead. >> It's the wrong date. they did their um
comp sheet has 2020 as the year on it >> and I just think that's an automatic disqualifier. I guess um I I differ a bit uh in opinion on on this one. In completing an RFP, uh there
can be scrier errors. And I did notice also in their score sheet they put 2020 in there. That could have been an error. I couldn't tell. But they did through the rest indicate the proper years and and all of that. The first one, yes,
failed to even give uh a quote. They only put a quote in on the base um uh audit if you will, not the uh gas, not CRA or or uh or golf. However, when I
look at the mandatory criteria, it really speaks to the qualifications in terms of uh professional things and things that would um cause a conflict from a grant or a more legal uh stance in terms of their
ability to perform the training that's required. uh any conflicts of interest, any known standards that they have failed uh to adhere to and each of them had that laid out. Now what I did note
the the reference in terms of 2025 was the next one. Now those are usually speaking to the period under audit that is probably not completed yet. >> So that's probably why it's not in there. >> Are you speaking to the peer review? >> Yes. >> Yeah. There was one that was before that
that is in here from from another person that submitted. >> Yes. Yes. So they permitted supposedly their last one. My thing was also a question as to why was there a six-year gap uh in their in their peer u uh review.
Um and I wanted to know the reason for for for that. But as far as strictly whether they were disqualified according with the mandatory uh elements um in my view, no. Did I mark them down
for not having that and considering the quality of their response? Yes. That's how I I didn't disqualify them. I addressed that in terms of my my scoring. But that's how I I I did it. >> And that's how I did mine. But I think
we still have to come up with a uh as a cohesive unit how we will like to proceed forth because um we do have I want to say from the top of my noggin that we had three that did not qualify
based on whatever reason um from committee members and two of them if I recall correctly were the same organization. Well, not the same organization, but the same organization that didn't qualify. Um, so overall, we
still have to come up with a how we want to proceed as a committee. >> Yeah. And personally, I'm in alignment with Miss Meyers with the exception of the HCT. And I think that's clearcut. If they didn't submit their most recent peer review, then they're out. That's a
mandatory element no matter what. >> You know, I I'm unsure how engaged the performance because yes, you can judge experience based on how long they've been engaged with certain communities, but um how do you and Mr. Sheffield maybe you can help with this, but how can we gauge their past performance
given what's in front of us? >> And you're referencing all together or just >> this is part of the professional evaluation. Yeah, part of part part of it is the peerreview response enga in
terms of engaging or understanding their their their past performance performance in accordance with standards because that what that is about in terms of do they conduct their audits in accordance with the required standards and they get a third party to come in and look at all
the workpapers their procedures. The other thing is only the first one indicated an indication of the new rule that comes out as in terms of the review of their policies and procedures. Um, and I was surprised that the other firms didn't even speak to that because that's
a new requirement that they should have had done already even though it's not required to be in place yet. And that was one of the shining things I was looking for in terms of someone that knew um what the deal was in terms of things. So I it's the it's the peer review. Unfortunately, there isn't a
lot. It's it's a lot with references that um you you go through and do and a lot of them left that in there in terms of people to to be able to contact. Um so uh and then you're looking at whether they have and they each sign whether
they've been in violation of uh of any uh laws or or or things of that that nature. So, um, uh, and then looking at their the the resumes that they, uh, they they put together and and to me that if they have
a a true solid base of governmental clients, uh, that they have on a repeat basis, uh, unlike some in in the list, um, uh, it gives some credence to to to
their their past, uh, performance. Um, so that but there you're you're right. There isn't a ton uh there that they're they're they're bringing forth. This is basically their resume and then some confirmations from a a state and
peerreview standpoint as to how they've performed. >> So at one point in the I'm sorry. >> No, go ahead. >> Um in the RFP it it verbalized it mentions that the single order approach
is risk based, you know. >> Yes. >> And five of the six do not consider it risk based. They use a hybrid, >> but only one of them actually says risk based. >> Yeah. in in >> in the in the description. If they've
done a single um uh audit and they've had a pre-review, they would have had to uh have used a riskbased uh assessment. Um, but some of the some of some of some of
the presentation in how they put and described their audit approach was a bit inconsistent. And I I I I see exactly what you're saying, how some of them did a really two of them I thought did a really good job in laying that out. Others were kind of weak um with respect
to that and left some questions open as to how they um uh did some things. So, um, uh, that's I guess all that I I would have to say to that. We're still left without how we would
like to proceed with those that we have deemed or those that have deemed disqualified. >> So, just um to give some input. So, what where is the hangup? Because the way this would work is that we would all
kind of declare what our scores are. The scores would be tallied and then we would determine the top three firms. >> I understand. However, the determination was the the determination was that it was left up to the committee as to how
we would like to proceed forth. And I did not want to move past this without giving the committee the opportunity to explain their position. so that in the event that a response is needed that you would have been in a position to provide us with that response. Um so that's why
I put a hold on it uh in order for us to move together as a cohesive unit. Um, so again, if we are comfortable with moving forth, I'm comfortable with moving forth. But if there are some individuals
that are not comfortable, I would like for us to iron that out in its entirety so that as we move forth, comfort is there and we move forth as a cohesive unit. So again, is there any level of uncomfort that has not been addressed
that needs to be addressed from anyone that has brought forth a concern with regard to uh disqualification of an individual? It's kind of hard to have that conversation because we don't have Miss Meyers here to weigh in, but she
has weighed in heavily with regards to um spelling out where her disposition is. >> Yeah. So, I'll I'll outline mine again because I believe what I heard was consistent. But the last mandatory element that I recall was follow instructions.
>> Um and and I don't think that's arbitrary, right? I don't believe it's subjective. Um I think it's pretty clear. Um you do this when you submit. Uh my interpretation is that one and three did not do that. Um and that's my
interpretation. If others say that while they didn't do that well I don't think mandatory gives us the flexibility to say okay but right I was told in the last meeting that mandatory meant mandatory now if that's different tonight then I just need to understand what it means today um in regards to
number two um I think mandatory is also peer review and theirs is either not submitted or their review has not been they've not been given feedback but either way it doesn't say once you get feedback submit your most recent peer review it says you must submit your most
recent peer peer review. So, um I guess I'm I'm not sure what that leaves open for interpretation either. So, >> can I add a little point of um information? The city can or you can decide to reach out to the proposal
proposer and request a point of clarification, additional information if that's um the desire of the of the committee. I will say this just we've tried to take our time and we've
tried to iron out um as much as possible anything or any concern that may arise and understanding your position and what you've stated. But we've had extensive conversation and these are basic rules and these are basic things that should
have been submitted and if you have done this prior to or before these should be automatic things that you should be able to submit. Um and we as a committee have sat here and tried to
twiddle our thumbs is to make sure that we cover everything that could come before us. And now we're at the moment. I don't feel that it's our duty to reach out and request additional information when the information requested they didn't even provide as of now. So that's
just my position. Um I'd like to along the same lines as following rules. The compensation it called for the sum total. Five of the six gave subtotals not sum totals. So just on that fact
alone, five, four or five of them could automatically be. >> Okay. >> Does it define what that is in the RFP? I don't remember. Seriously. >> Does it define >> what sum total is? >> No. >> Yeah. So, uh I don't I sent a email um showing
a screenshot of the sheet that is required to be filled out and there's a breakdown and it's by city CRA and each of the different entities because each one has its own budget. So, each one would have to pay for that cost um
separately or on their own general ledger accounting line. So that's the the reasoning behind requesting that breakout. Um and the the total amount is although it is beneficial to have ultimately each entity is paying for its
costs separately meaning the city is paying in its the in its entirety and that column that says city audit that's the amount that the city will be paying for and CRA will be paying for that amount and the gas authority will be paying for its amount. So really and
truly the amounts that are the breakdown is more valuable to have. >> Mr. I had a just go ahead. >> I guess I I look at that last sentence and I say well what's in the scope of that last sentence? Uh does it get down
to well if if the RFP uh said uh the sum total of the years if the information is there for us to arrive at a sum total does that not comply? I I just try to deal with the because I believe the the
the firm adheres to the instructions in this request for proposal on preparing and submitting the the the the proposal. And so to me, it also speaks to because there's the stuff up above that sentence
speaks to the qualifications, all of all of the all of that type of stuff. That last sentence to me speaks to the timeline we've asked them to do things in um including the information uh that we asked them to to include. Um
and so but you can read that you can interpret that in different different ways. Um because but the second point is if we do disqualify and we have differing pieces on the the qual the the disqualifications when you record
the the um >> the scores >> the scores and try to average it's it's not going to work. Um, so what because the process that you go through, you record each of our our scores
>> and then you do do and then you do what with each of our our scores for each >> um each of the scores get totaled up. So your score for proposal one >> um and his score for each proposal,
>> right? And so if some of us are saying, "Well, no, I think two should be out. I think three should be." Oh, no, but I don't think they're qualified. So, it's the average isn't going to is going to work. We're going to have to agree >> on um and then if someone didn't score
someone that we conclude should be in right now, we're going to have an issue. So, yeah, we've got to agree as a committee. >> Yeah. >> Which ones that all of us are going to score so that we can reflect. >> Yeah, I agree. And that's what I understood that we would have to as a board based on Miss Pierre's
recommendation that we would have to agree that this firm either met or did not meet the mandatory elements. That's what I thought the guidance was. And >> and >> trying to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I did take number two's um potential interpretation and actually
went to the extent and pulled some other audits they've done for the city of Palaca and there are many many errors within each audit that I found. And you're happy to take a look at these if you want, but it's >> I mean to the point where they reference restrictive funds versus unrestrictive funds.
>> For the sake of the scope of today's meeting, I would like to stick to the RFP, the evaluation criteria just so that our process is transparent and fair. >> Um.
>> Yep. So based on that, I make a motion we disqualify one, two, and three. We have a motion. >> We don't have a second. So, it dies for lack of a second. >> So, we will proceed. >> Oh, okay. Go ahead. >> Go ahead.
>> I have no problem with with with two given what you've what you've stated, but that the only thing that I saw or what else did you see on number one? because I saw they didn't give the grid. >> Yeah, that's the only thing that's the only >> and so just for that I I I guess I wouldn't do that.
>> Um it's not based on one of the because the peer review thing would be of concern to me if you you've got a six-year gap and then I know you said that your your one was coming through on 2025. Maybe it's not done yet, maybe it's not, but that's a key qualification
up during the top part of the mandatory. So that's why I could see where you're coming from on there. But three, you had three in there, too. >> Just for the same reason about the grid. >> So yeah, >> but they did include all of they did
include a CRA, but they didn't do it in the fashion that so I wouldn't do it just for the presentation or the fee inclusion. I think >> Yeah. But but >> two, it's questionable.
Again, we have a motion that died from lack of second. Is there a motion before I decide to move forward? >> Yeah, I'd like to make a motion we disqualify number two. >> We have a motion and it's been properly second. All in favor with moving forth
with the uh disqualification of two say I. >> I. >> Any opposed do so by saying nay. So we will move forth this qualifying applicant to proposer two. Um
all right. Uh so again with that being said, Miss is West standing in the gap for uh Miss Meyers if you would read the findings excluding uh number two. >> Sure.
Number one respondent Malden and Jenkins LLC certified public accountants on technical qualifications a total of 25 points. Miss Meyers gave 20. On professional experience, total of 25 points. Miss Meyers gave 25. Audit
approach and methodologies 25 points. Miss Myyers gave 20. Total compensation proposed out of 20 Miss Meyers gave five. certified minorityowned. She gave zero. Her total was 70.
Number three, James Moore and Company PL. I'm just going to read Miss Meyers's uh score totals instead of the total amount. Um for technical qualifications, she provided 20 points. Professional
experience, she provided 20 points. Audit approach and methodology, she provided 25 points. Total compensation proposed, she provided 10 points. Certified minority owned or veteran, she
provided zero. Total 75. Number four, Moss Cusk and Associates LLC CPA. Technical qualifications, she provided 18 points. Professional experience, she provided 12 points. Audit approach and
methodology provided 18 points. Total compensation proposed, she provided 18 points. Certified minority owned or veteran, she provided zero. Total 66. Number five, Pervvis Gray, CPA.
Technical qualifications, she provided 25 points. Professional experience, she provided 25 points. Audit approach and methodology, she provided 20 points. Total compensation proposed, she provided 20 points. Certified minority
owned or veteran, she provided zero. Total 90. Number six, Growl and Associates, LLC CPA. Technical qualifications, she provided 15 points. Professional experience, she provided 20 points.
Audit approach and methodology, she provided 15 points. Total compensation proposed, she provided 10 points. certified minorityowned or veteranowned. She provided five points for a total of 65.
>> All right. Thank you. I believe our next proposer is Mr. Sheffield. >> Okay. >> You ready? I guess I should do this for uh proposal one uh technical
qualifications 25 professional experience 25 audit approach 23 uh compensation proposal 16 certified minority or veteranowned
zero for a total of 89. Proposal three, uh, technical qualifications 25, professional experience 25, audit approach 25,
um, compensation 15, minority, minority owned, veteranowned, zero for a total of 90. Um proposal 4 technical 22
professional experience 20 audit approach 22 comp 20 for a total well certified minority own zero for a total of 84.
Proposer five, technical 25, professional 25, audit approach 23, comp 17, uh minority or veteran zero for a total of 90.
Proposer uh proposal six um technical 20, professional 20, audit approach 20, uh comp 15, minority veteran zero for a total of 75.
Um in addition to what I saw on the face of the proposals, um number uh three
uh and one also offered uh CPE training uh which spoke to the expertise of their actual current staff and uh the team that they were looking to provide to the city uh which spoke uh highly in my view
of uh an additional uh benefit in showing their expertise also that they are trainers in these areas. >> Thank you Alexander. Number one, technical qualifications 22 uh professional experience 25 audit
approach and methodology 25 total comp 15 for a total of 87 number three James Moore 15 for technical qualifications professional experience 20 audit approach methodology 20 total comp 15
for a total of 70 number four technical qualifications 15 professional experience 18 audit approach methodology 20 total comp 1568 or yes 68 purpose gray technical
qualifications 25 professional experience 25 audit approach and methodology 20 total comp 20 total of 82 number six technical qualifications 25 professional experience 22 audit
approach and methodology 23 total compensation 15 minority owned or veteran five for a total of 87. >> Thank you. >> Could you make sure your mic is on, please? >> All right. Tom Dolan. Uh Malden Jenkins
25 for technical 20 professional experience 25 audit approach and methodology 20 total compensation uh 20 veteran or minority owned zero for a total of 80.
Uh three, James Moore technical 25, professional 25, audit approach and methodology 15, comp 20 and
MBE zero for a total of 85 points. Four, Moss, Crusk, and Associates. 25 for technical professional, 25 audit approach, 20 total compensation,
15. Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I was doing MOSS. I read the wrong category. Go back to the beginning for 20. for MOSS technical 25, professional 25,
audit approach 15, total comp 20, MBE 5 for a total of 90. Pervvis Gray certified uh technical 25 professional experience 25 audit approach and methodology 20 total comp
15 for a total of 85 and six Grow Associates technical 25 professional 25 audit approach and methodology 25 total compensation proposed 15
uh MBE zero for a total of Thank you. Number one, technical qualifications 21 professional experience 21 audit approach 19 total compensation 17 certified minority owner or veteran
zero. Respondent number three, 21 technical qualification professional experience 20 audit approach 17 total compensation 18 certified minority owned or veteran
zero respondent number four technical qualifications 21 professional experience 19 audit approach 18 total compensation 17 I'm sorry I didn't give you the total
score for so I'll go back and just once we approach >> um respondent number five technical qualifications 20 professional experience 18 audit
approach 18 compensation 17 certified minority owner or veteran zero number six number Six technical qualifications 21 professional
experience 17 audited approach 18 total compensation 18 certified minority owned or veteran zero giving a total for respondent number 78 respondent 70 I'm sorry
respondent 376 respondent 475 respondent 57 73 and respondent 674. >> Okay. Thank you for providing the the scores.
Um give me one moment to tally the the scores. >> Can we talk amongst ourselves while you do that? I have a question. >> As long as it's open. No, it's open. >> Okay. Number
six. Page three. Page three. read them all. I think they could have done a better job calling it out personally. You know what I mean? I don't think any difference. questioning something
really. Let's Thank you. What percentage is >> Shantel? I have results. I'm going to go over them one more time just to be sure and we can compare if you want.
Okay. The door.