24-1003-Q-AR917_Design_Prof._Srvs._for_EHS_Shortlist_Scores.pdf

201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares FL 32778-2496

(352) 253-6500 Fax: (352) 253-6503 www.lake.k12.fl.us

“Equal Opportunity in Education and Employment”

Superintendent: School Board Members:

Diane S. Kornegay, M.Ed. District 1

Bill Mathias District 2 Tyler Brandeburg District 3 Marc Dodd District 4 Mollie Cunningham District 5 Stephanie Luke, Ed.D

RFQ # 24-1003-Q-AR917

Design Professional Services for Eustis High School

Short-List Evaluation Ranking Date 12/3/2024

On December 3, 2024 Evaluation Committee Short-List meeting, the committee met to discuss and evaluate The four (4) submitted proposals based on the evaluation criteria enclosed in the RFQ. Below are the final scoring and ranking for the four (4) vendors. The committee agreed by consensus to invite all four (4) vendors to conduct oral presentations before the Board. Date of Oral Presentation to TBD.

Zyscovich, LLC Corgan Associates, Inc CPH Consulting, LLC Little Diversified Architectural Consulting, Inc

Criteria Related Building Experience and

References

Qualifications of Proposed

Team

Design Approach

Current andProjecte d Workload

Willingness to Meet Time & Budget Requirements

Certified Minority Firm

Distance to District Office

Total

Weight 30 25 20 15 3 95 5 100 Zyscovich, LLC 27 22 15.6 12.2 2.4 0 4 83.2 Corgan Associates, inc. 21 17 15 12.6 2.4 0 4 72 CPH Consulting, LLC 18 19.6 13 13.4 2.6 0 4 70.6 Little Diversified 18.4 17.6 14.8 12.4 1 0 4 68.2

“Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

Respondent: Zyscovich, LLC

Criteria: Related Building Experience and References Evaluator: Kelly Randall

Comment: Cypress Creek HS comprehensive renovations for OCPS; CT Hsu project completed 2016; 402k sf for $38 million. Renovation and expansion with a classroom addition; occupied campus. Immokalee HS addition for Collier County; Zyscovich project completed in 2022; 58k sf at $16m. Included addition, campus-wide capital renewal on an occupied campus. Included aviation program classroom along with other CTE classrooms.

Seminole HS vocation building for SCPS, CT Hsu project completed 2018; 19k sf for $4 million. Included

“Equal Opportunity in Education and Employment” construction design technology lab with outdoor work area. Programmed to accommodate an aviation program in the future. Dr. Phillips HS comprehensive for OCPS; CT Hsu project completed in 2015; 440k sf for $50m. Included multiple phases on an occupied campus. Winding Waters K-8 expansion for Hernando County;

15k sf completed 2024. Zyscovich project on occupied campus. Appropriate letters of reference included for all projects.

Evaluator: Alex Fowler Comment: I like the breakdown of the smaller project experience sections. The project details on each project were a nice overview. Cypress Creek - Similar project and the project details are really laid out nicely.

On schedule and budget. Immokalee - Same thing with this one. I thought it was a good comparison. Seminole - Was not sure why the completion dates and cost were x`d out. Smaller budgeted school and slightly different.

Dr Phillips - No new addition but it showed a larger renovation project. A little older of a building. Winding Waters -Smaller budget and delayed on completion but seems like it was out of their hands.

Evaluator: TracyClark Comment: Cypress Creek HS: $42 million project to include classroom bldg. addition. On time and under budget.Immokalee HS: $16 Million- class bldg addition. on Time & budget. (similar solutions required: bus loop, parking, etc. Dr. Phillips HS: $50 million to include new classroom bldg. additions. on time/budget. From: OCPS Project Mgr: In an active school environment, C.T.Hsu and associates managed both projects with exceptional [professionalism and expertise, navigating every complexity smoothly.

Evaluator: Willie Hawkins Comment: Firm "known" since 1977.Education studio "formed" in 1982.Desined 450 educational facilities, many on operating campuses.Has worked on campus before. Worked on impressive Miami High school.3k occupants on campus during the phased construction.Considerable wide range of experience. Thinking outside of the box (movable walls, agile spaces for differentiated learning, modular furniture) student focused facilities that cultivate collaboration, curiosity, creativity and critical thinking.Completed over 100 schools.safety and security, uses several levels principles to include federal directives (Anti-Terrorism Force Protection.Highlighted extensive work and collaboration in areas of safety strategies.Firms states that their high-performance design in one instance saved a school district $125k annually.Firm states that in the instance of Cypress Creek HS, original cost was $42mil, actual cost was $37.4mil. Start/Finish completion dates are unclear in projects submitted by firm.Info submitted is incomplete on pages 9, 11, 13.original cost for Winding Waters was $3.9 M, actual cost $4.9 M (why).Litigation, with Archdiocese, how did firm and subs miss the possibility of kids being kids (especially inn a tot lot, how do they design for older kids).Concern about Aventura Park Square litigation (bankrupt engineer consultant "serious defects") both residential and commercial.

Evaluator: Shawn Towers Comment: Projects listed were of comparable scope and complexity. Most projects listed on time and under budget.

Criteria: Qualifications of Proposed Team Evaluator: Kelly Randall

Comment: Project team consists of CT Hsu, Harry Semples, Rene Alvarez, Jose Murguido, and others. All have worked together on multiple school projects for several Central Florida school districts, including Lake County. Subconsultants include Klima Weeks, Matern, BBM and SPDM. All are very qualified, with many years working together on projects.

Evaluator: Alex Fowler

Comment: They had a nice organizational chart followed with individual resumes that included what we asked. I thought this was a great section.

For the most part, lots of experience, especially with the firm. Also Lake County experience.

Evaluator: TracyClark

Comment: Principal in Charge: 40 yrs with firm. Numerous local school projects, including EHS previously. Senior Project Manager: 10 yrs with firm/ 13 with others (also local school projects including EHS)Senior Planner/Designer: 25 yrs with firm/12 other (same as above exp)Educational Planner: 42 yrs with firm (numerous local Schools)

Evaluator: Willie Hawkins Comment: Principal in Charge has been involved with 3 Lake County projects as has several of the key project overseers.

Diverse in years of experience are the members of the team.Projects are diverse as well with many members of the team having projects in common.All appear to have the appropriate license registrations.

Evaluator: Shawn Towers Comment: Team as presented meets the requirements/qualifications. Done work at EHS before as well.

Criteria: Design Approach

Comment: Design approach includes some discussion of concerns around an occupied campus. CT Hsu was design professional for 2003 modernization of Eustis High. No specific knowledge of site provided in proposal, but discussion of need for preliminary assessment, programming and design development. Would have liked to have seen more discussion of knowledge of site, considerations around adding 600 students to a tight campus, some discussion of initial approach to design. No discussion of alternative construction methodologies.

Evaluator: Alex Fowler Comment: I like the included project scope section. They have a good "One Team" approach. One thing I would like to see here is some sort of aerial that shows the layout of the school. They are using same team that master planned campus. A little bit wordy of a section but nice titles to show what they are talking about. Could have expanded on this section with more detail.

Evaluator: TracyClark Comment: "One team" A detailed phasing plan will be created to maintain a safe, functional, occupied campus construction. In 2003 our design team addressed the challenges of a tight site and a historical building. Today, you can rest assured that our team will plan and a design a new 21st century facility that reflects the school`s heritage. Bring the same Principal in Charge, Senior Planner/Designer, Project Architect, and Matern Professional Engineers.

Evaluator: Willie Hawkins Comment: Pre-construction team and the design team challenge each other to deliver a creative, practical and affordable project.One team approach.listed project scope and financial constraints (shows concern for the amount of money that they need to be concerned about prior to even being awarded the contract.Collection of data, evaluating of existing campus buildings (is this going to cost more?)Quick review and validation of LCS initial program prior to site evaluation work. (no unnecessary cost).Firm has worked on the campus "they know the campus".They work with 3D desgn modeling software, which makes it easier for the customer to see and understand the project.Emphasis on cost/benefit analysis throughout the project.Concern QC process (litigations shows instances where that wasn`t adhered too) Sizeable to team to oversee the project.Value engineering to avoid unnecessary to avoid delays. Building Information Model (BIM) ensures integrity through automation and coordination across all project elements. Concepts to Keys Final occupancy, move in, staff orientation, training and building. commissioning.

Evaluator: Shawn Towers

Comment:

Interrelationships of the parties involved is a bit vague. Knowledge of site and local conditions is listed.

Did the master planning in 2003. Local area demographics briefly touched on.

Interrelationship of parties involved is well detailed.

Criteria: Current andProjected Workload

Comment: Firm has multiple projects underway, but most are more than 65% complete, and many more than 80% complete.

Would appear to have capacity for project.

Subconsultants are also busy but appear to have capacity.

Comment: Most projects for Zyscovich are over 50% done.

Some of the subs have more work.

Some of the subs completion dates were either dollar values or did not have a completion date.

Comment: Zyscovich/Principal in Charge: Completion % of the 9 projects listed, 98, 4 in the 80`s, 2 in the 70`s, 65, 40. ( 5 in 2025, 2 in 2026) Harry Sempeles: Single point of contact for the district is fully committed to this project.KLIMA WEEKS:of the 23 listed, 5 are below 65%.BBM Structural: 9 listed, all in the 90% for completion.Ammon Architect: 9 listed, 5 in the 90`s, 2 @ 75, 2 @ 0%.Matern: 7 of the 46 projects listed are below 70% status. 1 @ 30% / 3 in the 40`s / 1@ 55% / 2 in the 60`s.

Evaluator: Willie Hawkins Comment: Firm has submitted info that states that they have 5 project in excess of $2 M that are in process or nearing completion.Majority completing 2025, with one completing 2026.Of the combined extensive subs within excess of 100 combined projected workload, three are in excess of $1.5M, of the remaining projects approximately 80% are close to completion and minimal in complexity in comparison to the EHS project.

Evaluator: Shawn Towers Comment: Ct Hsu/Zyscovich Missing remaining balance. Sieben Assoc. graph is out of order. Workloads look manageable.

Criteria: Willingness to Meet Time & Budget Requirements

Comment: Provided a feasible design and constructin schedule which will lead to a substantial completion by 7/27, with a one-year construction timeframe. Discussion of importance of regular estimating throughout design process for cost control.

Comment: I thought the timeline was a little vague and lacked actual days instead of just months.

It was a little too hard to follow. It is nice they provided a track record of actually being under budget.

Comment: Proposed

Timeline Provided (clear and concise)Budget Requirements:

Listed Proven Track Record from local high school projects (all 4 under budget)

Evaluator: Willie Hawkins Comment: Projected completion time is within required EHS complete date. Concentration on the cost control through material management. (low cost/low maintenance material, IS THE MATERIAL SUBPAR?)Always looking for ways to save money, saved $5M on previous project.Value Engineering

Comment: Proposed timeline meets the requirements. Cost control through material management is only mentioned.

Value engineering has its advantages and not just at the end of the design to sacrifice the end results.

Criteria: Certified Minority Firm

Comment: N/A

Comment: No

Comment: Not an MBE firm Recognize the importance: Partner with MBE certified firms

Comment: Works with WBE, not MBE.Any people of color?

Comment: None supplied.

Criteria: Distance to District Office

Comment: 38.2 mi

Comment: Orlando, 38 miles

Comment: Firm has 30 fulltime employees located within 38.3 miles of District Office.

Comment: Orlando office established 1984 with 30 staff members. Located about 38 miles from the District Office.

Respondent: Corgan Associates, inc.

Criteria: Related Building Experience and References

Comment: Dallas ISD, Thomas Jefferson High School; 2020-22 - project included renovation and addition of high school and adjacent elementary school. $95. million. Renovations included both indoor and outdoor learning and dining spaces. S.

Karthik was PM. Argyle High School Addition, completed 2021. 340k SF, $62 m. Included athletic and classroom additions.

Occupied campus. Tyler ISD, Tyler Legacy Addition/Renovation. $96m, 507k SF, completed 2020. Phased construction on occupied campus.Coppell ISD 9th grade center addition, completed 2018. 196k sf for $25m. Classroom, athletic, CTE spaces along with outdoor dining. Canyon ISD, Randall HS Addition and renovations, completed 2021. 332k sf for $37m. Phased project on occupied campus, including classrooms, CTE, athletics, etc. Letters of recommendation from all cited districts. All projects in Texas; does not indicate knowledge of SREF or Florida-specific school construction issues. Projects are generally larger than EHS addition, but many similarities. S. Karthik is only listed on one project; R. Connell on another. Not project team experience? Under litigation, they state no litigation "for educational projects".

Evaluator: Alex Fowler Comment: In regards to references, 95% repeat client business. That is a good thing. No claims in the last five years. I like the project relevance box for each project. Thomas Jefferson HS- Dallas - Over $95 million and they stayed on budget. They gave a timeline that showed they stayed on schedule. A rebuild and renovate project. Seems to be a similar scope of Eustis HS, however this is in Dallas. Thought is was a good comparable school. Argyle HS -$62 million and on budget. They showed they stayed on schedule. Also very similar in scope but not in FL. Tyler- Over $96 million. Came in on budget. Big school that was delivered on schedule. I like how they are not just showing additions but also renovations. 9th Grade- Smaller project but was on budget and on time. Randall- Another cost comparable project and on time and on budget. I like how they showed projects with a mixture of team members. Most of the projects were comparable but some were a little smaller and not in Florida. Good references. I also really liked the layout and thought it was right to the point and easy to read. They even added additional experience. The only thing is I didn`t see any FL projects.

Comment: School projects: In Texas (on Budget/Time)

Comment: 100 years combined experience.Been in operation 86 years. Sangeetha Karthik (PIC).Budget management, integral at all levels, (won`t move on until all cost associated with project are agreed upon by all parties).1953 first school design.No litigation.All projects on budget, nothing under budget.Typical build time for 2-3 years.Eight projects completed similar to EHS projected project.

Evaluator: Shawn Towers Comment: Litigation only addresses the education projects in the past 5 years, not all of their projects. Projects listed were on budget and on time. Projects listed seem to be of comparable size or bigger. Projects scopes/complexity are similar.

Needs more Florida projects

Criteria: Qualifications of Proposed Team Evaluator: Kelly Randall

Comment: 28 staff members in Orlando; 140 firmwide. S. Karthik`s resume lists Cherokee School for the Arts for OCPS. She has been with Corgan for 23 years; did work on other high school projects in Texas. C. Oyedele is PM; also working on Cherokee for OCPS; other projects for Dekalb County SD in GA. Previous to Cherokee, experience was primarily with smaller renovation projects. R. Connell is also on Cherokee; previously worked on projects in Texas. Other project team members are working on Cherokee and are/have worked on education projects in TX and GA. Where are they located? Proposed Matern for MEP, Avcon for Civil and School Planning & Design Mgmt. as subs

Evaluator: Alex Fowler Comment: Principal in charge was listed as a project manager on a project so it was nice to see one of the projects she was

on. I like the layout of this section and how it broke down name, title, job assignment, years with firm, etc. Good amount of experience and there are only a few people fairly new to Corgan. I thought this section was really good and they showed all we asked. Team for project is relatively new at working together.

Evaluator: TracyClark Comment: Principal in Charge: 23yrs with Corgan (1 FL project) Project Manager: 2 yrs with Corgan/ 21 yrs exp. (FL exp.

with Orange and Dekalb)

Evaluator: Willie Hawkins Comment: Diverse key personnel assigned to the project.seems to have done homework, regarding the campus (bldg

#5).Consensus plan driven.Team cost estimator on team. two independent estimations of cost. numerous projects that could possibly be ongoing during EHS project 13 that are less than 75% of 13 projects complete under PIC. Approximately 29 out of 73 projects consultant involvement under 75% complete.

Comment: Lake Highland Prep is not a LCS. Todd Bonnett has no dollar amount or size for projects listed. Team members are qualified.

Criteria: Design Approach Evaluator: Kelly Randall Comment: Basic discussion of site, primarily reiterating information included in the RFQ. Acknowledgement of some of the particular challenges of the site, including need to accommodate additional students in core spaces (dining, etc.). No discussion of alternative construction methods or challenge of constructing on a very small site, other than acknowledging need for staging space. Not much on local area demographics and very basic discussion of interrelationship of parties.

Evaluator: Alex Fowler Comment: I like the different visuals of the school. Good knowledge of the campus, the conditions, and how it functions.

Somewhat light on details. They knew about local area demographics and provided a nice chart. Good breakdown of the involvement of all parties. Could use a little more detail.

Evaluator: TracyClark Comment: Provided detailed specifics about the campus layout, access areas, and special considerations. (sports fields, parking, drainage, occupied campus, limited space, etc.)Local Demographics: provided in detail "Our previous experience tells us that there will likely be many voices on this project, sometimes with competing, even contradictory points of view.

Our job is to guide these voices into a consensus singing from the same page."

Comment: The firm is familiar with the campus. Has started to identify areas beneficial to the proposed addition.

seeks to select a construction manager early onthe process.Design approach was lite on details

Comment: Spot on with local and site conditions.

Comment: Very complete projected workload tables included. Liked that they broke it out by project team members.

Primary project staff committed to three projects, one for OCPS and two for Dekalb County. Appears that they have the capacity to handle this project as well.

Comment: Really impressive breakdown of workloads. With Corgan, it seems like they have spread out there work enough to not let it interfere with our project. The breakdown was nice with having staff members and their specific projects.

Matern has a lot of work but other than that, it doesn`t seem too bad.

Evaluator: TracyClark Comment: % Status of Completion:Principal in Charge/ 2 @ 30, 1 @ 5, (8/25, 12/25, 8/27) Project Manager/ 2 @ 30, 1 @

10 (8/25, 12/25, 8/27)Project Architect/1 @ 5% (8/27) ASD/ 3 Permitting Phase, 4 @ 50% or below AVCON/ 7 near completion, 1 @ 34%for 7/25 Matern: 7 of the 46 projects listed are below 70% status. 1 @ 30% / 3 in the 40`s / 1@ 55% / 2 in the 60`s.

Evaluator: Willie Hawkins Comment: Numerous projects that could possibly be ongoing during EHS project 13 that are less than 75% of 13 projects complete under PIC. Approximately 29 out of 73 projects consultant involvement under 75% complete.Start to finish anticipated completion 2.5 years.Start construction 3/26.Build and review construction estimate, used at every phase of the project.States projects constantly on budget based on construction estimate review process.Avcon not in compliance with certificate for Minority firm status.Orlando office 28 employees.Within 50 miles of the project.

Evaluator: Shawn Towers Comment: Matern- VES 77% complete? Have not broken ground yet as of 11-20-2024. Pg. 43 Matern- BSE- 66% complete?

Pg. 44 Have not finished the design as of yet. A considerable amount of workload for the next 4 years. Avcon list Lake Panasoffkee Elementary as a LCS. Pg. 45.Bonnett Design Group ( Landscape Arch) behind on 5 projects for OCPS and a few other for different districts? Pg. 45, 46. 80% complete on LCS 4 schools? Some have not broke ground as of yet? above for design only not construction.

Criteria: Willingness to Meet Time & Budget Requirements Evaluator: Kelly Randall

Comment: Feasible design and construction schedule included; very complete, taking into account holiday breaks, etc.Cost control approach includes estimating at all breakpoints during design to ensure that they are on track with the budget.

Inclusion of SPDM for estimating is indicative of commitment to budget management.

Comment: I like how they showed the duration and the start and end dates as well as including holiday break.

They did this layout nicely. I like the graph explaining their cost control.

Comment: Timeline overview provided.Cost approach overview provided.

Comment: Build and review construction estimate, used at every phase of the project.States projects constantly on budget based on construction estimate review process.

Comment: Timeline proposed meets the completion date. Note that the budget will not change in 3rd paragraph but at bottom of pg. 52, note that the budget may change

Comment: Corgan is not a minority-owned firm.AVCON and ASD, Certificates provided.

Comment: Avcon not in compliance with certificate for Minority firm status.

Comment: 2 certificates presented, 1 expired on 11-15-2024.

Comment: 39 miles

Comment: Orlando, 39 miles

Comment: Within 50 miles of the project. 39 miles to the District Office.28 full time employees

Comment: Office in Orlando for 7 years with 28 employees and about 39 miles from District

Respondent: CPH Consulting, LLC

Comment: Projects for Florida School of the Deaf and Blind - CPH served as design criteria consultant and owners representative, not design professional. Two projects - 19k sf and 32k sf; under $10m each. West Leesburg Neighborhood Center, completed 2017. 9k sf for $1.9 m.Joe Moody Park, Panama City, started 2021. Listed LCS Continuing Services (including LPEC high school project) and Seminole County Schools Continuing Services as projects. Projects listed are smaller than proposed EHS project and only one is on an educational campus. Two of the litigation cases are personal injury cases with minimal relation to the firms work.

Evaluator: Alex Fowler Comment: Worked with Lake County Schools for over 31 years. Nice graph showing the continuing contract breakdown.

Several Lake County jobs. Gregg/Kramer Hall - Full renovations, decent sizes and also values. Both projects are on time and are on budget. I like how they showed the staff who worked on it and a good reference. It was a smaller value project.

Leesburg - the resource center is different from a HS. Completed on time and on budget but I didn`t really think this was a good one to compare. Also much smaller. Joe Moody - Same thing with this project. It is not a school and not a very big budget/project. Clermont ES - Good that is is part of Lake County. A full redesign plan that aligns with what we are looking for. Although behind schedule, can`t blame them if it was not their fault. I thought they had some good examples here but some that were not quite what we are looking for. They had good references and it`s nice to see they included their work team on each project. Points are being deducted for the few projects that didn`t seem like they fit in. Also this project would seem to be a much larger project for them.

Comment: Redesign of Clermont ES to Lincoln Park. 2023 to 2024, running 4 weeks behind.

(change orders required) Other education facility projects in neighboring counties (much smaller/cost) were completed on time and on budget.

Comment: Brook Sherrard, PIC, 25 years experience.Extensive working relationship with LCS over 31 years.Multi Disciplinary approach.Sanford and Orlando Offices.Has provided firm services to Lake County with the exception of Structural and Architecture. Reference package submitted by the firm(CPH) has smaller less complex and less expensive.Reference letter from Lake an Seminole County are identical in content with other irregularities.Firm party in some part to four legal litigation cases.Settled to avoid further legal fees. Served as design professional on project as opposed to principal.

Comment: Shows Florida school for the deaf and blind, and Seminole county for 2 projects. LCS for a recent project LPEC.

Others are non school oriented. Scopes and size were similar. How recent is recent? To me about the last 5 years is recent.

Some of the projects listed for LCS are well over this age. Nothing noted for future workload. Projects are smaller in size and cost Past performance on LPEC was adequate. Possibly could have done more exploration at the start of design to mitigate some of the unforeseen conditions.

Criteria: Qualifications of Proposed Team Evaluator: Kelly Randall

Comment: Staff members are experienced in Florida K-12 work, although based on their resumes, most of their K-12 work is from previous employment. The architecture studio focusing on education at CPH appears to be relatively new, while the civil engineering division is long-standing. Matern was selected as MEP subconsultant, ECS as geotechnical engineers.

Evaluator: Alex Fowler Comment: It`s nice to see the breakdown of proposed team and how they are also in some of those projects listed above.

I thought this section was done really well. You addressed the points we were looking for. Quite a bit of experience but also some that are new to the team. Thought it was nice to see projects they worked on in good detail. Some of the team members are pretty knew to the company.

Evaluator: TracyClark Comment: Principal in charge and Project Architect: 25 exp/ 5 CHP.Led similar projects before coming to CHP (FL Districts

& Germany) Education Specialist: 1 yr with CHP/ 43 yrs exp.Civil Eng: 35 yrs w CHP / 45 T (Lake Minneola HS) Partnering/Matern: Principal Eng 20 yrs partnering with Lake County Schools, 26 yrs with Matern.

Evaluator: Willie Hawkins Comment: Sherard, PIC, participated in $1.3B dollars of construction, over 3.7 M sq ft.Very diverse international portfolio.Flex Classrooms with flexible concept design, allows for flexible design.Diverse in size, design and complexity.Decaro, Education Spec, 43 years experience.completed complex projected several million dollars below budget.Not much mention about green and energy saving concepts. diversified large projects.pg 41 Eustis Heights Elementary, info not accurate.Many of the primary points of contact have extensive background knowledge and expertise.

Comment: Team that is presented meets all the qualifications.

Criteria: Design Approach

Comment: Comprehensive discussion of importance of programming in advance of design. CPH completed the civil design for a master planning project at EHS (when?). Importance of reviewing multiple options with stakeholders to develop consensus on direction. Discussion of alternative construction technologies , including ICF construction and/or industrialized construction (modular). Minimal discussion of needs of building on an occupied campus. No presentation of preliminary design options or demonstration of knowledge of site.

Comment: Overall, they gave an in depth description of the design approach. A. They talked about what needs to be done on the site but B. Did not see that they included local demographics. C. They did talk about the role of all parties. It didn`t seem like this section was completed and would have been nice to show aerial photos of the site. Also, seems like some of this was just repeating itself. It is nice to see a lesson learned section.

Evaluator: TracyClark Comment: Committed to a partnering relationship with the school`s team members to to facilitate a successful project that meets budget and schedule goals."strong understanding of the existing campus" EHS is historical campus like that of Clermont Elementary.

Evaluator: Willie Hawkins Comment: Very focused staged approach to the project with partnering workshops.worked with LCS before, lessons learned and process improved upon.scope includes all spaces for the building.comprehensive.Checks all boxes with their extensive proposal. Didn`t demonstrate knowledge of the site.

Evaluator: Shawn Towers Comment: Designed master plan for EHS when built. Different designs available. Local area demographics not discussed.

Comment: Provided chart of workload demonstrating capacity for this project based on March start date.

Comment: Their firm shows most projects finishing up in 2025 and are over 65% completed.

Some of the subs have some more work but it doesn`t seem like too much to handle.

Smaller contract amounts compared to our project.

Comment: CPH: Of the 8 projects listed, the % completed is: 3 in the 90`3, 1 @ 88, 2@ 70,2@ 65, ( 3 completion dates in 2024, 5 in 2025) Matern: 7 of the 46 projects listed are below 70% status. 1 @ 30% / 3 in the 40`s / 1@ 55% / 2 in the

60`s.ECS: 14 projects listed at less than 60% completion. ( the one at 55%: 4/25 completion)DRMP: 2 in the 90`s, 65%, 35%, 30%, 24% (4 in 2025, 1 in 2026)

Evaluator: Willie Hawkins Comment: The firm submitted current and projected workload for the team.Of the appropriate 60 projects, three are contracted in excess of $1M.Of the remaining projects, most are smaller and near completion within the next year.Budget designed to consider the operations and maintenance cost.The budget provides understanding of the potential to make sound long term decision.

Comment: Matern seems busy for the next 4 years.

Comment: Provided comprehensive design schedule anticipating one year construction, which would provide for substantial completion well before desired date of 7/27. Very feasible deadline dates.Discussion of cost controls focus on regular estimating throughout design process to make sure we are not over-reaching the proposed scope.

Comment: A. They did have a proposed timeline showing dates of when things would be finished. B. I thought cost control was very word heavy and a graph would have been nice. However, they did provide methods on how to handle the budget.

Comment: Detailed Timeline, broken down by category.Cost Control and Budget Methods:Specific numbers listed and stated, "this budget is more than sufficient for this project.""Control of the scope and budget is a critical component"CPH has developed several tools...validate the project budget...track the project throughout the design.(specifics provided)

Evaluator: Willie Hawkins Comment: The firm submitted an very detailed ambitious timeline of project milestones.It spells out the number of days allotted to complete each task.The firm designs the budget to consider operations and maintenance cost in order to make long term decisions.

Comment: Proposed schedule meets the deadline.Albeit a bit ambitious moved in by April 25 2027. VE workshops good idea for cost control.

Criteria: Certified Minority Firm

Comment: Not a certified M/WBE firm"CPH has a culturally and ethnically diverse workplace form its leaders to its employees.

CPH employs a workforce that is reflective of many nationalities and cultures. Established programs and policies for recruiting..."

Comment: Not a certified minority firm or affiliated with one

Comment: None provided.

Comment: 32.6 mi

Comment: Sanford, 32 miles / 41 minutes

Comment: Distance to district office.43.3 miles.107 Full time employees

Comment: Office in Sanford for 43 years with 185 employees and about 33 miles from District

Respondent: Little

Comment: Osceola NeoCity Academy Main Building; completed 2019; 45k sf for $26 million. Focussed on net zero energy consumption. STEM school with tracks in cyber security, engineering and biomed engineering.Osceola NeoCity addition;

completed 2024; 56k sf for $23.4 m. 3 story, 600 student stations on occupied campus. Variety of classrooms, labs, etc. Also includes a kitchen and cafeteria. Other projects from North Carolina, involving T. Eliason, Design Principal,including Palisades HS for CHarlotte-Mecklenburg; completed 2022. 312k sf for $92 million. Apex Friendship HS, completed 2015; 315k sf for $49m. Four story building with all core facilities. Covenant Day School in Matthews, NC, completed 2016; 57k sf for $10 million. All appropriate references included. Costs seem very low for size of projects; designs are cost effective?

Evaluator: Alex Fowler Comment: One thing left out in this section is if projects were on time and on budget. Osceola - Similar in size and scope.

Although the solar panels are a nice feature, we are not looking for this on this school. It is a nice feature that this prototype is being used. Osceola 2 - This is a nice example of adding a building to the property. It fits along the same lines as what we are looking for. Charlotte - This one is out of state however, it does show a larger project that they completed with it being a full new HS. It was a higher budget and a bigger project. Wake - Another out of state but similar in budget. A little bit older of a project. Covenant - Out of state but a smaller project. Again a little bit older of a project. Some of these projects were older examples and still did not show on time or on budget. Next time include this as part of it.

Comment: Local Similar School Project:

Osceola County , NeoCity AcademySchool Board:"New firm to Osceola County..

.exceeded our expectations. Phillip and the team hit the ground running on our very challenging project, which has been a huge success.

Comment: The vendor has shown the ability to complete comparable projects. The emphasis of energy saving construction details is appealing.the stated savings of $112k in one school year on a previous project. Little was able to complete a much larger project at a much higher cost in three years from start to finish based on the material provided.The past projects provided were not as current as i would have liked.Unique and innovative design solutions (described by references letters).There are three instances of either litigation or a claim over the course of the last five years.None of the issues were directly related to Little`s work product.

Evaluator: Shawn Towers Comment: Projects presented were of comparable design, scope and complexity. No mention if the projects were on time and on budget...

Criteria: Qualifications of Proposed Team Evaluator: Kelly Randall

Comment: Project staff consists of experienced architects. Although the K-12 school studio of the Orlando Little office is relatively new, most staff there have been together for several projects and almost all have significant experience at prior firms. Matern is part of team as MEP Engineer with significant experience with LCS projects. KPM Franklin as Civil Engineer and LA. Include Chris Kraemer with SPDM as cost estimator. Little is a large firm with 400 employees and 100 designers, so there is a deep bench.

Comment: I like the organizational chart showing the team. For the most part, they followed what we are looking for but left off dollar value and square footage of the projects they worked. So this section was partially missing info.

Comment: Principal in Charge: 3 yrs with Little (not the lead from Osceola project)28 yrs previous exp.Project Manager: 2 yrs with Little / 23 previous(affiliation with surrounding school projects prior to Little) Design Partner:21 yrs with Little in Charlotte / 23 previous

Comment: The team was diverse in qualifications .The subconsultants were minimal.

Comment: Some of the Projects noted do not disclose dollar amount and square footage. Proposed team met all other requirements/instructions.

Criteria: Design Approach Evaluator: Kelly Randall Comment: Design approach focuses on stakeholder communication and participation in programming. Some discussion of location and concerns with traffic circulation. If firm is short-listed, would like to see more discussion of practical issues around occupied campus construction considerations, appropriate spaces for CTE labs, and long-term master planning for a tight site. Emphasis on orientation seems like "fluff" because there are really limited options for orientation of the building.

Evaluator: Alex Fowler Comment: I thought they did an decent job with this section. I like the graphs and how they show great knowledge of the site, local conditions and demographics. I also like how they included the site plan and design concepts, which shows they have a good design approach. There still is a bit of detail that is missing out of this section that could include working on an occupied campus, etc.

Evaluator: TracyClark Comment: "Aim is to create buildings that that truly reflect the desires and aspirations of the communities they serve."Knowledge of the Site, Local Conditions, and Area Demographics were clearly provided. A few initial design considerations listed: Access to daylight and views/Acoustics and noise mitigation/cohesive campus architecture/connectivity and clear wayfinding/security and controlled access

Evaluator: Willie Hawkins Comment: Willing to engage with community from the start.dedicated project teams at every level.Focus of budget considerations wasn`t very prevalent.Tabletop reviews during engagement with school district. Focus on low energy output.Focus on community and school, taking and combining input from community, school district and design firm.Instances of indpendent estimator on the team.Not comfortable with "reviewing the cost and adjust as best as they could to address the situation".Focus on designing projects to do less harm to the environment in an effort to find the balance environmentally, economically with human factors.Vendor is knowledgeable about the site and location.Knowledge is general in nature, seems to lack personal connection and investigative interest.It appears that the vendor has put considerable thought into current campus and the possibilities (access to daylight and views, acoustic and noise mitigation, cohesive campus architecture and security)

Comment:

Knowledge of site and conditions is relevant.

Local area demographics could be better touched on.

Interrelationship of parties explained well.

Could have used more detail on designs.

Comment: Orlando office appears to have sufficient capacity for this project; subconsultants also have sufficient capacity.

Comment: Little has a few projects so it doesn`t appear to interfere with our schedule.

However, they are smaller contracts than what we will have.

Some of the subs have more work but it doesn`t seem to be a big issue.

Comment: Little: Current projects in design phase will be well ahead of EHS project. Majority of current projects are in construction phase. Matern: 7 of the 46 projects listed are below 70% status. 1 @ 30% / 3 in the 40`s / 1@ 55% / 2 in the 60`s.KPM Franklin: 7 listed with high % status6 listed with status of 20% or below, however, completion dates of Dec. 2024 (x2), Feb. 2025, March 2025 (x2), and one TBD.

Evaluator: Willie Hawkins Comment: Based on the info submitted by the submitting firm Little, the firm only has six projects ongoing, with a highest contracted amount being $900k.The projects appear to smaller than the proposed EHS project.The partner company (Matern) has according to info submitted has 46 projects in process. The largest contract amount is approximately $2mil.Those projects don`t seem to rise to the level of the proposed project at EHS.Concern for the limited amount of subconsultants.Is this firm able to fully embrace the EHS project, to complete the project in the allotted time frame and with budgeted constraints.

Evaluator: Shawn Towers Comment: Little`s workload seems ok. Matern`s workload is rather heavy for the next 2-3 years. Others seem to be manageable.

Comment: Timeline included appears to be for Eustis Elementary School? Phase I/Phase II, reference to Building 1.

Although it largely works for this project as well and does meet the required timeline of completion for the 27-28 school year. Budget control is addressed through cost estimating throughout project.

Comment: The visual timeline was nice but thought it could have been a bit more detailed with actual dates rather than just the months.

It was hard to track the dates. Seems like they have methods for cost control. Graph was for a different school.

Comment: Timelines are detailed and within tentative completion.Budget Requirements:

Methodologies were listed to assure stating within budget.

Comment: the firm provided a timeline that coincides with the requested completion by LCS.although in some area the progress time is behind other firms the end results as proposed meets the timeline.Concern is limited number of resources submitted by Little and the level of experience as it is related to the EHS project.Referred to elementary school.

Evaluator: Shawn Towers Comment: Cost control measures seem to be reasonable. Did not provide the correct detail for this school on graph.

Building 1?

Comment: Not a minority owned business.

Comment: Little founded inn 1964, has stated that they are not a Minority Owned or Women Owned business.Concerning that based on today`s society, and the amount that they could profit from this project, firm has not aligned themselves with a company that be a benefit to the project and the firm

Comment: Not a minority firm.

Comment: 42 mi

Comment: Orlando Office: 42 miles / 51 minutes

Comment: Firm is 42 miles, 51 minutes from the District Office and less from the proposed job site.firm states that they 40 full time employees in the Orlando Office.

Comment: Orlando office established in 1999, 40 staff members, and about 42 miles from the District office.