for a total of 75. Okay, moving uh to our second proposer, built more construction. Gary 18 17 18 7 9
>> Chief Barkley >> 24 28 9 and nine. >> Chief Bars >> for Bill Moore. I have 18, 20, 20, 7,
and 10. >> Victor, >> I have 19, 20, 26, 8, 8. and Steve. >> I have 24,
25, 20, 9, and nine. >> All right. So, we're moving to our third proposer, college companies. Uh Gary. >> Okay. for collage construction. I have 18 18
7 9 Chief Barkley. >> 24 25 9 and nine. >> Chief Bars >> for collage. I have fif
13 13 152. >> Victor, sorry. Chief Bart, did you say 13 135 15 >> 13 13 13 15 and two. >> Sorry. Yes. >> Total of 48.
>> Okay. For collage and sorry, did you ask for mine? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. 21 20 23 8 and Steve >> I've got 20 22
22 9 and 9 >> total of 82 moving to core construction Gary >> 20 22 24 8 6
>> total of 80. Uh, Chief Barkley >> 24 24 30 9 and 9. Total of 96 bars
>> for core I have 25 22 23 sorry I'll start over 25 23 30 10 and 10 >> 25 23 30 10 and 10 total 98 uh Victor
>> for core I have 20 20 26 7 8 >> total of 81 and Steve >> I've got 24 25
22 8 and 10 >> total of 89 and uh our final proposer is Nabo's construction Gary >> 18
18 18 and five. >> Total of 67. Uh Chief Barkley >> 24 25
9 and 8. Chief Mars >> 10 13 5 8 2 >> total of 38. Uh Victor >> not horse I have 20
20 23 78 >> for a total of 78. and Steve. >> I've got 20 20 20 10 and five
>> for a total of 75. So those are all of the scores. Uh looks like our highest ranked proposer is core construction followed by Builtmore Construction. Uh and then we have College Companies
third, Bandy's Construction fourth, and Neighborholes fifth. That's as it stands now. So, uh, at this point, I would like to turn it over to the committee to begin discussing the proposals, the positives, the negatives,
uh, things in the proposals that stood out to you, uh, positive, negative, and, uh, I guess we can start out with Bandy's construction. I had something that was kind of glaring on theirs that was a little confusing
and it um I'm pretty sure it was a typo on their part and their total calculation, their square footage price made sense and I was looking at their total price for the project and I was a little confused how they came up with that and their square footage was way over what we had proposed. They had, I
believe in their, and I don't have it in front of me, but I think it was 18,000 square ft for the total project area, which would be a significant obviously that would make their total price go up and could have caused some people to pause on their uh on their
pricing, >> which threw me a little bit as well. >> That threw me a little bit as well. My understanding was we were not to include pricing in the RFQ. >> Correct. Okay. >> And they gave us a square footage price
>> based on that erroneous size. So >> I I believe that we cannot use those uh prices to evaluate it. Uh they they offer it. We didn't ask for it. However, this this was not a final price. But I
agree with both of you. I I think they the way they put the verbiage there is that they were firm on the prices. So they were not uh like uh able to negotiate. So they said that either you you have to change the scope. They actually wrote it like that or uh like
do something. >> My biggest fear is that it was is miscalculation on their part and they based everything on that because if if you take the square footage of what our project is and their scorage price, it's literally right in our budget range. But
because they had that 18,000 square foot and I was couldn't figure out where that came from. >> Yeah. >> Then then it went way over. >> And in that same paragraph, they they wanted to split the project into do a police department first and a fire. That just >> doesn't work for us. So, um I did like
that they partnered with Longan Associates. That's a reputable local firm that does a lot of work here in Palis County. Um, I was, you know, hoping that would that would pull things out, but there were just like like chief said, there were a few things in the proposal. Um I did some research as well
other agencies that have used them and have had uh um you know and without going into specific details I can say that you know the construction process was good and then uh in one instance at least where
uh the final payout was made there was difficulty getting some punch list items fixed after that. So that kind of set them back in my book. you know, I I I thought that uh you know, they're a younger firm. I guess
they they their experience was not as deep. They um they didn't especially in the design build aspect of it. They had some very uh impressive projects. I think I think uh uh I'm going to say this about all the all the submitters um
respondance. They were all very very attractive uh packages, but as previously mentioned by Chief Barkland, Chief Bars, the uh there was some this discrepancies. I wasn't going to go ahead and hold the square footages one
way or another because, you know, the bottom line is they have to still negotiate and we have to work the design out. What we had given them was sort of like a starting point. um was was there anything left out of the original layout that we provided and they had some input
onto you know I was willing to have the discussion on that but the um I I think the the the lack of creativity from a schedule standpoint they just basically said it's going to take longer because of whereas
I saw other respondents saying well we'll try this type construction or we'll evaluate these other means and methods to to speed things up, you know, and and it just seemed it was a little weaker in that area. So, that's why I didn't score them as highly. >> I felt it was a little more along the
lines of the design team and stuff. The experience that uh seemed to be lacking the way I felt seemed like it didn't have the u much of the as much of the public safety um design. >> You know, it's funny. I I honestly was
was I considered them a little bit of a of a of a long shot in terms of of of this review. Um I started reviewing late yesterday afternoon and and I did a quick tally of it and and I slept on it and I came back and I said, you know, it might be interesting to see someone like
that who's not necessarily um they might bring something else to the table. I reviewed their their submittal in more detail and then I just I came to the conclusion though that based upon our needs and uh uh in terms of you know our our uh cost uh limitations and our our
timing constraints I just felt that other teams brought too much to the table. >> All right. Any other comments on Bandy's construction? I I just want to add that if based on the conversation we're having any of us miss something and learn something from
other we can change the score all the way until we we conclude it. So I just want to give you that information. >> Uh which leads perfectly into my my question for you all. Based on the conversation is everyone comfortable with the scores that you read out to me
a few minutes ago? >> I am. Let's let's continue the discussion and maybe as we get into the other firms. >> Um the I like to do the the next flow is we'll kind of slowly work our way to the top and kind of go in that direction
because I think it'll be easier for us to find um you know discuss those things that we thought were shortcomings initially um and then we're kind of so I'd say we go with that enables construction next. >> Fine. Yeah. >> They were the next uh >> they were actually the lowest of the
lowest. Okay. Okay. >> Uh, >> so Dave, I'm going to recommend I I like Gary's idea. If we started like that, so because we didn't started with the lower, I I would recommend just to go in the same order you were going at the beginning just because we didn't start. >> Yeah,
>> absolutely. Yeah. So, let's jump to NAB holes then. >> Yes. Second on the list. Uh, >> oh, you want to continue? >> Yes. because we didn't start it with with the lower. So, >> go to Builtmore. >> Yeah. Be more just in that order. Yes.
>> Builtmore. Gotcha. Okay. So, let's go to Builtmore then. Um and let's have your comments on them. >> Builtmore. I thought one of the things was that they were using water maker Jensen, which um I'm I'm familiar with
from this building and stuff. um the architects um that and the looking at the amount of projects they've done in this area um raised elevation of buildings for the beach locations um and I actually spoke to um some of the
engineers that have worked with them up in um um Clearwater and that there and I just had had felt that they were a competent firm for what we were doing and what we were looking at and understanding of the project that we're trying to do. Yeah, I feel the same way. I was I was
very comfortable with their experience and and that's what I looked you can see obviously by my scores that was that's how I rated you know how many buildings have they built like this and how many coastal construction projects have they had and uh well by my scoring they were
they were my number number two >> but that's because of their experience >> and I would agree looking at their their submission and the fact that they built public safety facilities in Alam Marada and Marathon >> you know if they can stand up there. I was good with that. Um, also worked with
Wanomaker Jensen both here and at my prior employment and had great experience with them. So, uh, great partnership with that architect firm and bringing on local engineers as well was good. Um, did have a question, a couple questions
on the submitt on page 31 and and I'm just putting it out there for the record. I know there's nobody here to answer, but um under references, they listed Treasure Island Police and Fire Departments and said they had already built us a $20 million building. >> Oh, yeah. >> I think that may have been accidentally
slipped into the um spreadsheet there at some point. Or maybe there that was a pipe dream. >> If we can find 20 million, I'm game. But yeah, so just pointing out that typo. And then again on page 41, um, and maybe this is the way I read it,
you guys can correct me if I misread it, but the way it looked like, uh, according to their spreadsheet and graft on availability of their staff, the project manager looked to be 50% committed to Largo and 50% committed to
a St. Pete project. While it's great they're going to be local, but you know, that to me is 100% committed. No room for us. Maybe I misread that. I don't know. Um I would have scored a little higher had that not been the case. But um again,
like Chief Barkley, they were um my number two pick just, you know, based on reputation also and looking at projects they've done. So >> I I have a little bit of experience. I have a little bit of experience with
Builtmore um previous uh um position and it was favorable. I uh liked the team um that both their concept approach for pro uh for the project but also the WMaker Jensen um they were our strong candidate
for the original selection when we were going for an RFQ initially just to have a design project. So, um they they looked strong. They were um my third ranked team, but my second and third were one point apart.
So, they were right there >> for me. They were a tie in the first place. So, so yeah. Um I think I like what I saw. I think they're they they have to explain to us some uh typos I believe on on on the proposal and that's going to happen if they are selected for
the three uh companies to interview. We we can ask them some of these questions. I I like their experience. Erh, I have some questions about the project manager uh as well and the specific experience for that project manager because the
other members has a lot of uh experience in similar projects but I I have some questions about the project manager for that company and we're going to take the interviews Mondays to to clear those if they are selected. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you for those comments.
Any other uh feedback on Builtmore before we move on? All right. So, let's go next to college companies. Steve, you want to start us off again?
>> They um I I just felt they had some good resources in their designs. Um they had looked at a couple things. Um they had some pretty solid projects. Uh they were my third choice. Just I didn't really have any any super negative standout to
them. They just didn't have didn't seem to me to have the experience of you. My first and second my first and second were tied. So um it just didn't have that the same level of experience I thought. But I don't have a problem with them and anything that stands out
glaring. >> Yeah, I felt the same way. My my only hesitancy with them at all and reflects in that lower score in that one column for me is their lack of coastal construction emergency services building experience.
That's that's what did it for me. I know they did a lot of stuff in the in the middle of the state and and inland, but I was looking for more coastal experience. >> Yeah, I gather the same thing. >> The same thing. it felt like less uh coastal experience, you know, in the scourge zone and and with the wind
rating as well. Um they're Orlando based, which is, you know, you know, not quite as far as Tennessee, but um not as close as some of the other competitors. Um it looked like, you know, financially from what they referenced in here, I had
a note that the um you know, it looks like they could do it within what we were asking. So that was a positive. Um, I really like that they they mentioned zone strategies and acoustic um, considerations in the firehouse are taking care of our number number one
asset, which is our officers and firefighters. I mean, if you if you just want to be totally cold and look straight from a budgetary standpoint, you know, we spend 90% of our budgets on personnel cost. So why would we not spend capital and operational funding to
make sure they have what they need to best do the job and remain healthy? So I really like that that was a consideration in their in their presentation. I um in evaluating a collage um I felt that they had they showed solid
qualifications, relevant public uh um uh sector experience. Um I thought that they did a nice job of the team integration um and and uh you know they came came
across very strong. So I was I was pretty pleased with that. I've ranked them. They were my second ranked uh firm. >> So the for me they were my third candidate. And I have the same comments that uh the rest of the group has. They
they lack a relevant similar experience uh or or projects. Um what I like uh from them is that they're willing to work uh on the budget and and make sure we meet the requirements of of whatever
budget we have. They didn't talk about pricing. They but they did talk about budget which one was one of the criterias and they they said that they're able to work with us to meet our our criterias. All right. Um, next we will move into
core construction which was our highest ranked proposer. >> Let's start this way now. >> And and core for me was the just like you say the highest rank there. It was tied for my first place. They work with Kimley Horn who we've have experience
working with as well. um the um some of the things that they had talked about with the um their meeting schedules and being able to communicate with uh with us during the whole construction period of it and the their their coastal experience as well. Um for me put them
right right there at the top. Yeah, I agree with all that and I would add, you know, their their examples they have are pictures of the fire stations they've built and you can literally see the water in the background, which is exactly what we're looking for here. And and I believe in according to their
proposal of the researcher, they're the number one public safety facility builder in the country. So, their experience is, you know, they don't have to learn how to do a fire station and how to do the the zones they need. They don't have to learn how to do a public safety facility. They've done it multiple times. So I was very very
comfortable with their presentation proposal, excuse me. >> Yep. And same here. CORE was my first ranked as well. Um according to their literature, they've done over 50 public safety facilities. That's combined 300
police and fire total. Um that's huge experience. They've got Venice, Cape Coral, um you know on the coast, uh Palm Beach. Uh I've toured the Largo and Leman stations. they just did. Um, pretty impressive construction. And then
as far as design and engineering goes, we've worked in depth with Sweet Sparkman um, laying out this project. And I'm I'm very impressed by in their proposal. They they had considerations for things
that um, you know, that that we hadn't even thought of yet. I mean, we we talked about a display bay and that was mentioned a few times, but their proposal considered um a future ladder truck bay that, you know, we we hadn't even mentioned and we're not even
thinking about. So, future proofing the station clearly, you know, in their design mind when they're looking at that. Um, like Steve mentioned, they partner with Kimley Horn. We've had a lot of experience with them as well. They also have what's called a clean PSB
concept. It's pretty revolutionary, but um we've heard a lot about it at fire conferences and um public safety type events. It's clean public safety building, PSP. It's where they do a hot, warm, and cold zone. And they include um
like for example, your apparatus bay where the diesel exhaust is going to be prevalent, carcinogen, your EMS decon rooms where you're going to have biohazard. Those are hot zones. They don't mix in the HVAC systems. They don't mix in access. There's negative
pressure corridors between the two. Um, keeps our firefighters safe, keeps our station wellmaintained, and uh goes for longevity of the station as well. Um they also look at as as did one of the other uh proposers
um you know making sure that the quiet spaces are quiet and located in a quiet area and you have a place to go and rest and and be quiet and then you have your communal areas. This is for a fire department after all. It's our home one-third of our lives while we're in the workforce. So you need to build it
that way. They considered um if I got into their website I I saw a bunch of stuff. They actually consider the mental wellness of the people who occupy the building. So instead of dark rooms with no windows, they try to use ambient light, which also cuts down on on mold,
bacteria, that kind of stuff from a health perspective, but keeps your, you know, sunlight is good for the brain. And they'll they'll paint an accent wall with bright yellow or some, you know, subliminally calming tone. It's just little things like that that that caught
my eye and I was very impressed with. >> Thank you, >> Chief. Tell us how you really feel. >> I'm telling you, I seemed good. >> Maybe too good to be true. I don't know. We'll see. Um, no, I I I thought they had a strong, you know, team, you know,
design, build, um, a project delivery approach. Uh, uh, significant public safety facilities, coastal facilities, um, just a lot of, uh, it was obvious the experience that they have in the
public safety field and, uh, um, they were my number one firm. So I don't have too much to add to everything they had say. They were my number one as well. Something I want to to say and this is uh to confirm when if
they end to be the the final uh contractor they will have to take the EOC language out of the any contract they signed with with us because uh we re were awarded a grant of $1.5 million and I believe in order to receive that
money we we cannot have EOC on on on the contract. So, I this this is to be confirmed, but I just wanted to add there and they they they will just have to delete that that language. >> Yep. And and you know, in all fairness, I get that and and we'll do we'll you
know, I'm sure we'll get there. Um what we mean by an EOC when we talk about it is a classroom multi-purpose room. >> Correct. >> It's also a conference room. It's also a training room. Um it's extra sleeping quarters when we have outside agencies come in to assist. and then we can bring
in tables and laptops and make it an EOC. So, but yeah, we'll modify the language. >> If if anything, it's it's a local EOC for us, just where we would conduct business during emergencies, not running county assets out of here at all. >> And and it would be posttorm.
>> Oh, yeah. >> That's I think that I think that's the key is that that this is not meant to be a occupied EOC during an event. No, it's it's a multi-purpose room. And the way the way the electronics and the way computers are nowadays, you don't you used to have to pre-wire EOCC's. Now an
EOC can be any building because we walk in there with our laptops as we did in the church. >> Across the way and that was our EOC. >> A Starlink and you're golden. >> Yeah. It's used to have hollow floors. >> It's a room. >> Yeah. >> Whatever you want to call the room, it's it's a room. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> And Yeah. And just so anyone anyone watching or observing understands our concept of operations is we won't be in this building during the storm if it's if it's hurricanes again. Um we leave the island with everyone else once the
evacuation's complete and then we come back. What we want is to come back to a building that's high and dry. um hear that faint hum of a generator in the distance knowing the automatic transfer switch worked and we can walk into that building and go right back to
work serving our citizens. So that's the concept of our operations here. >> All right, any final comments on core construction? Hearing none, we will move to our final proposer, Neighborholse Construction.
um neighborholds themselves I I didn't have a problem with their design teams. My my biggest issue was the uh what I felt was a lack of um understanding of the coastal um requirements um to do here. They they seem to be more of a
interior um builds um and that's why I ended up writing the way I did. >> Yeah, it's exact same thing for me. I mean everybody everybody who submitted proposal I I I felt had you know really good design build team and really good
experience and all this and I know Napols I know they have an office in uh um locally here um but they're it's an Arkansas based company and and a lot of the examples they gave were out of state >> in Tennessee >> you know a lot of yeah Tennessee I saw I
I believe there was a a fire station in in Illinois which is >> which is great but that's not I mean that that knocked it down a little bit for me That was my line of thought there. >> Yeah, same here. Um, ton of experience in schools and healthcare and I wouldn't
want to have to build a school or a hospital. I wouldn't want to build a fire station, but um I imagine they're very technically experts in those construction projects, but not a lot lot of Florida experienced in the um in the team. Um, and the other thing that that
stuck out to me was their when they described their process, it seemed a little boilerplate like it might have been on every proposal. I don't I can't say that it was, but it just did not seem to address our specific um wants and concerns for our our
project here. >> Yeah, I I agree with that comment. I did note that it did appear a little bit more of a standard uh cut and paste kind of an approach. Um but they are very prominent national design build firm. they they have a lot of great experience
and uh um the the shortcoming was the fact that they did not have the experience here in Florida as as much as the other uh candidates had. Um and also I was a little you know I think when you work in this area and you have a better feel for subs and things like that
versus if you don't do a ton of work here you don't just have a a whole cadre of you know subcontractors vendors that you can pull pull in. So I think that that hurt their effort a little bit. >> I agree they they lack experience on on
public safety. Uh and what I see from this course I mean not that we said everything about all five companies is that we I I I believe that we all had the same one two three four and five. So uh that means that is
very consistent uh with with the first three to interview and and and to manage. I did uh check if any of these five companies had any material lawsuits to impair them to do the job and none of them I I couldn't find any material lawsuits for any of these five
companies. >> Just more of a general comment. I just want to make sure that uh um that our our presenters that we end up selecting for uh Monday's meeting um that uh uh if
they're listening that they um you know we we saw a lot of great things that were uh identified and you know we'd like to be able to afford them all. We may not be able to um keep that in mind before uh painting too pretty of a picture. um I don't want to go ahead and
and end up with having to to take things out if it gets too expensive. So So I'd rather, you know, keep keep our focus on the ball and um um I I I personally thought that, you know, unfortunately Banditis didn't score very highly, but um I thought their their rendering was
pretty pretty an interesting take on on on the building. It was an attractive, fairly simple design that uh um it it was it was a nice interpretation. I I hope that they would rank a little higher, but um but that was that was
probably the a nice element they provided. So, back to the score sheet. Um, you know, based on the conversation, discussion, and comments that you all have made, uh, are there any adjustments that anybody would be interested in
making to their scores? >> No. Me? >> No. >> No. >> No. >> So, to review again, um, highest ranked proposer was core construction followed
by Builtmore Construction is number two. Number three is college companies followed by bandis number four and then neighborholes number five. Uh the objective of today again is to select
not less than three firms to invite for presentations on Monday. Uh so that would make it core, built more and college if we only did three. Uh my question is do we want to
do more than three? >> Can we? >> Yes, we have to do not less than three. >> I I I think Bandis is was so close. They were actually my number three. And I'm not campaigning for anybody here at all. But I'm I mean if we can do four, I
don't see I don't see that being a detriment at all. Just gives us a bigger a bigger choice to see what they can do in person. >> I would agree with that. >> It's up to their It's up to everybody else. I don't know if you need a consensus or >> no issue. >> I mean if they were
>> maybe they will be able to explain that probably the the square footage. >> That's that's exactly what I want to ask someone. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There was a difference of eight points it looks like between number three and number four which you know based on you know over 300 points per
each is a pretty slim margin in my opinion. So, um, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to invite them as as a fourth presenter. >> It was two points for me on my individual scoring sheet. So, >> yeah, they were my number three as well. I had a few questions also I'd like to
ask them. A they they actually proposed um in their design discussions a pile foundation which um I know some of the other builders are using the matte matte concrete. um just want to see where they're what
they were thinking. You know, if nothing else, it's an education that even if we don't choose them, we can take with us to the other other project. So, >> no, you know, I mentioned earlier that they were sort of a dark horse for me as far as u you know, wanting to see them
do well. So, I I I would like to have them come in. Yeah. >> Um uh >> didn't didn't they also mention wasn't that the company that was talking about I think two of them mentioned the pre-cast >> to keep the con to keep the building strong. >> I don't know if they >> I know one of the others I saw
>> I think there were two of them that were mentioned that as as as a potential cost savings and strengthening of the building. >> And and I you know I I agree with I think somebody mentioned that Long and Associates uh as far as architects go.
Um I had some work with them in in a previous employment also and and they were uh I favorably looked upon. So uh I think it'd be a strong team to consider as a fourth. >> Okay.
>> So I hear a consensus of of uh four presenters for Monday uh to clarify some things and uh obtain some additional information. So, any any additional comments based on the
proposals? All right. So, I'd like to kind of shift gears and talk about Monday. Um, and I don't know everybody's time limitations for Monday. U I was going to propose hourlong blocks for each of the
presenters. Uh there's kind of a an outline of what the presentation period would consist of. Uh you know short presentation from each followed by question and answer session and an open discussion.
Does an hour seem adequate for you all? >> Do we have a what's the starting time? >> Uh again that's up to you all. >> I think it's at 9:00. I think we have >> I've reserved the room basically all day for Monday because I didn't know of your availability either.
>> How much time in between? >> That was going to be my next question. >> I I believe uh Dave sent us instructions and he said that he doesn't have those answers until he called them to see their availability. It could be all four straight or it could be one and then two
hours off and then we don't know that yet. >> Yeah. But I think an hour for each firm and ideally if they can stack all back to back an hour for each with maybe 15 minutes in between
a little bit >> probably ideal. >> I would do a lunch break in there too because you're going to run right up to maybe have the the last firm or the fourth firm or whomever. >> Yeah, >> we can have two in the road and and then 15 minutes break. Uh but we can be two
hours in in the road. But We'll try two two before lunch and two after lunch then. >> There you go. >> Do you all have any limitations? Do you have any other conflicts? >> My day is wide open. I do have to be I'm out of town Tuesday morning. >> Okay. >> We have to wrap up Monday. >> I think I have another or
>> I have a doctor appointment. I'll I'll switch it out. I'll can I'll I'll get it get it rescheduled the late in the afternoon, but I don't want to cut it too close. So, >> so if we can start as early as 9, hour for each and at least 15 minutes in between that make and a lunch break
obviously. >> Yeah, >> that'll work. Sounds good. >> Only if Victor brings lunch. >> All right. Any anything else? Any other questions? >> Thank you. Good job, Dave. Now, >> I want to thank you guys. I know this is a very quick turnaround. We just got proposals in yesterday. Um, it was clear
to me that that you all were committed to to taking the time needed to review them. Um, and you know, you guys just absorbed all the information, made very thoughtful comments, and and I appreciate the interest that you all have in the project.
>> You know, it you know, as I mentioned, you know, a lot of it was kind of like this. You know, we we sort of all ended up gravitating to the top three and uh independently. I'm glad we were able to invite the fourth because that was that was really close. >> Yeah, Bandy's was actually my third.
>> Yeah, that was like I said, me too, but it was only by a couple of points. So, I'm glad we could do that. I didn't know that was an option. So, I I I feel better. >> I'd like to give them like to give everybody a fair shot that you know scored high. >> All right. Well, thank you. I'm going to
um scan this into Demand Star. This is a public record at this point. So, I'll I'll upload that. I'll reach out to the the four firms and I will let everybody know about the uh presentation schedule for Monday. >> Get ready. It's coming quick. >> Yeah. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you all. >> Thanks everyone. You