PU-25-0041

Every appearance1 of 1 are in a recording

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 90% of 49 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1. 1Sep 3, 2025
   Board of County CommissionersR42Regular businessApproved

   Approved minutes

   Approved Staff’s recommendation.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 1:20:33
   ▶ 1:20:3316m

   Kathryn StarkeyChair

   1:20:33Oh, R forty two. What's big here? And I'll start signing.

   Kathryn StarkeyChair

   1:20:45Good morning. Good morning. Carrie Roberts, Purchasing Director for Pasco County. I am here today to discuss item R42, PU250041, the review of the county's denial of eligibility to protest award of solicitation number IFB, CA-25-086, as needed SOD, Megascapes Landscape Services Inc. in the amount of $1,410,000. Thank you. Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:21:09All right.

   Kathryn StarkeyChair

   1:21:15Nope. What happened? What did I do? Oh I did. There we go. No? Again? Sorry about that. Technical difficulties. No. This isn't not a lot. Nothing's worth. My presentation.

   1:21:34Um Kim Theney sent it to you? I had a presentation, the vendor did not.

   1:21:45I can send it right now, Gina.

   1:22:00Apologize.

   1:22:30All right, as we said, this is the protest eligibility for bid IFB, CA25-086 admitting SOD. We had three bids that were open on June 3rd from Agri-Turf, Megascapes, and Sunbelt Sod and Grading. On the 4th of June, we had an interoffice memo recommendation from Publix Works. We issued a notice of attempt to award to Megascapes on June 6th. On June 12th, Sunbelt Sunbelt protest was received in a timely manner. On

   1:23:00the 17th of June, the Purchasing Director sent a letter denying eligibility to Sunbelt. On 6.18, Sunbelt requested the County Administrator review the eligibility. On 7.2 of 25, the County Administrator upheld the Purchasing Director's determination of eligibility. On 712-25, Sunbelt requested a review of protest eligibility to BOC. And then on 721, another interoffice memo recommendation was received in Public Works, just upgrading additional funding for public works. Had nothing to do with the

   1:23:30award itself.

   1:23:33Okay, let's try again here. All right. For um the deniability eligibility. The County Administrator was ineligible to protest the award. Per section 2-124B6 of the Pasco County Purchasing Ordinance, the protesting vendor must be an interested party to be deemed eligible to protest. The ordinance defines an interested party as a person whose entity has direct economic interest would be adversely affected by one, a solicitation that has yet to

   1:24:03be closed by responses, or two has been submitted with a response to a solicitation and a notice of intent to award has been posted. A notice of intent to reject its responses or all responses has been posted, or a notice to shortlist response to the solicitation has the code. As the third bidder for the solicitation, Sunbelt would not have been directly affected by the award of this bid should the lowest responsible bidder be deemed non-responsive or non-responsible.

   1:24:30Our recommendation is that you uphold the decision by the County Administrator to deem Sunbelt ineligible to protest the award of IFB CA-25086 under section two-124-B6 of the purchasing ordinance and award the contract to Megascapes. And I believe Sunbelt is here and would like to discuss. Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:24:52Have you set up a time frame, Carrie?

   Kathryn StarkeyChair

   1:24:55Yes, sir, they have ten minutes.

   Leslie Sylvan

   1:25:00Good morning, Commissioner. My name is Leslie Sylvan. I'm the president of Sunbelt Side and Grading. We're a small family-owned business located in Hillsborough County. We have held contracts with Pasco County since 2004. In addition, we have extensive experience working with various other local municipalities. Under similar contracts. The background of my company reflects my deep understanding of the procruitment and contract process that came with the working for local municipalities and utilized taxpayer dollars to fund their projects. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all today

   1:25:30and respectfully request that you hear our reasoning for not only our eligibility to protest this award, but also our protest of the award itself. I am not here today to complain to you. I am here to advocate for fairness, transparency, and integrity of the proclamate processes and govern how small businesses like ours engage and do business with the county. The first address our eligibility to protest. It has been made clear that Ms. Roberts and Mr. Carbala's opinions remain remain the same, as they do not believe that we have any basis

   1:26:00to protest this award, as we were the third ranked better at the time of bid, and as such the claim that we do not have any financial interest in in this award However, I dispute that opinion for a couple reasons. One. The basis of our protest, which will be outlined in further detail momentarily, is that the County's Procruit Department did not do their due diligence in issuing the recommendation of award to you all. When they provided you with a recommendation of award, they recommended a business that does not meet the minimum outlined requirements as set forth in not only the bid solicitation

   1:26:31documents, but also a business that does not meet the requirements of the state

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:26:35law. Yeah. She's now beyond what the purpose of this protest is. This protest is to hear whether why she believes she's eligible to protest the award.

   Leslie Sylvan

   1:26:48Oh. I'm I'm getting to that part. Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:26:51But you're going on to the fundamentals of the of why you think you should have gotten the bid.

   Leslie Sylvan

   1:26:57Well basically I feel like that I should be entitled to have a protest due to that I did bid the bid. As a public record, when that was the recommendation of award was elicited, I didn't know if I was the second or third bid because that wasn't notified. It didn't give the tabulation, it didn't say the bidders, it just simply said it was recommending it to make escape. When I saw that, I looked and I saw that Megascapes, as per the bid res contract guidelines, was

   1:27:28supposed to be in business for a minimum of three years. And as public record, they were not. And also, I realized that the e-verify program stating that a company does not employ illegal aliens.

   1:27:43They're not they're not in that, they don't do e-verify, they're not listed in the e-verify database. So that's when I decided to protest the bid. At that point, I didn't know that I was the second or the third. That was made aware to me later on when Ms. Roberts uh did a uh teleconference with me in my office. So my standing is is how can you award a contract to a company that doesn't do the e-verify system, which is a state law. Not only, you

   1:28:13know, it's not just Pasco law, it's state law. It comes down from the state. So if you do indeed award that company You are allowing them to not to to receive pac taxpayer money without being e verify. So they may have illegal immigrant That actually work there because why else would you not be in the e-verify system if you did verify all your employees?

   Kathryn StarkeyChair

   1:28:42You have your ten minutes, so I mean Okay. Yeah. Well we'll br we'll we will bring up the county to ad answer those questions when you're done.

   Leslie Sylvan

   1:28:53All right, let me continue. In the event the first rank bidder had been disqualified due to the fact that they were not responsible responsive bidders, that would have put us as the second rank bidder, which would have gained us financial interest in the award based on Ms. Roberts and Mr. Cabal as an interpretation of the considered having financial interest. Had the first rank bidder been disqualified in the situation above, then the purchasing department would have also found the second rank bidder was also not a responsive, responsible bidder. the time of bid that did not meet all the requirements of the bid documents and in violation

   1:29:23of state law. In the event this would have occurred, my company would have been found the lowest responsible, responsive bidder. Based on what should have taken place, I strongly believe that my company does hold a firm financial interest in the improper recommendation of a ward. My companies work diligently to meet every requirement set forth by the county. We strive ourselves on being an upstanding business that provides a quality service and does not does business the right way. We don't cut corners, we don't skirt insurance requirements or liability. We follow all local, state, and federal

   1:29:53laws and regulations. Not only do we ensure that we are qualified for the requirements of any particular bid or contract that we pursue, but we are readily able To provide backup documentation supporting it. Throughout our 25 years in business, we have built a reputation for professionalism, reliability, and above-board business practices. Throughout the years, we have incurred additional overhead costs in comparison to other companies that do not meet the same requirements. Because of this, we are compared to a non-qualified company. This puts us at a disadvantage rather than a level playing field, as

   1:30:24we are comparing apples to oranges. When we responded to the solicitation in question, We did so with full confidence in the county's commitment to equitably opportunity. Unfortunately, the decision that we hear that we're here today protesting reflects a breakdown in that process, whether due to procedural inconsistencies, unclear evaluation criteria, or overlooked qualifications. The outcome has disadvantages not just to our business, but the broader principle of fair.

   1:30:52Competition. I believe that the evaluation process was done so without any due diligence. While certain requirements were set forth in the bid solicitation, the purchasing department did nothing to verify those requirements. before using a recommendation of Wall. To be clear, the first rank bidder, Megascapes Landscape Service, as Inc., should be disqualified due to the inability to meet the two different requirements. In accordance in accordance with the specifications document of the bid solicitation, Specifically, page two, paragraph 3.1.1, business

   1:31:23must have been in business for three years. According to Sunbiz, Megascapes Landscape Service Inc. was registered with the State of Florida Division of Corporations on 912, 2022. At the time of bid as well as the time of the purchasing department's recommendation of award, and even as of today, Megaskips Landscaping Services Inc. has not been a business. For the three years. Ms. Roberts explained that there's a similar entity as another, Megascapes Landscape and Maintenance Inc., however, that is a completely separate entity in the Florida

   1:31:53State Division of Corporations and has a completely separate EIN. And it actually registered even to a different state than the one submitting this bid. In accordance to the Bid Solicitation Document, Title B, General Conditions, 4-3-24, specifically page 7, paragraph 26, e verify requirement. It is explicitly stated that a contractor or consultant entering into a contract with a public entity such as the county is required to be registered with the U.S. Department of Homeland Securities

   1:32:23e-verify system and to utilize it to verify the work authorization status of all newly hired employees throughout the term of the contract. The failure to comply with this requirement constitutes grounds for termination of the contract. And for such other penalties as provided under section 448.095 of the Florida State statutes. The failure to e-verify is not just technically listed in the solicitation documents, it is the direct violation of Florida Statute 448.095, which mandates its use

   1:32:53for public contracts. By recommending an award to companies that failed to meet the requirement, the Procruitment Department has not only disregarded its own criteria, it's endorsed the violation of the state. The second rank bidder, agriculture premium SOD, was not registered with the Department of Homeland Security e-Verify system at the time of the bid, and as for the same reasons I just outlined should also be disqualified as a bidder. These are not just minor oversights, they are clear disqualifying violations. As a small business that meets all the qualification

   1:33:23requirements that align directly with the scope of work as outlined in the solicitation documents. I strongly believe that we are unjustly set aside and not given a fair chance to serve the county. Since this new solicitation is for a full five years versus the historical two-year contract, we will not have the opportunity to be awarded this contract for another five years due to no fault of our own. Upholding the decision sends a discouraging message to small local businesses. It suggests that despite meeting all requirements, our efforts Maybe still be dismissed

   1:33:53with clear justifications, without clear justifications. Additionally, the citizens of Pasco County deserve to know that their tax money is spent with companies that win awards based on fair public bid processes, as well as companies that abide by the laws of the state of Florida. It shouldn't have to be said that taxpayer dollars should not be awarded to businesses that knowingly and willingly operate outside the bounds of legal compliance. Doing so undermines public trust, sets a dangerous precedent, and penalizes businesses like ours that invest in doing things the

   1:34:23right way. When public dollars are awarded to non-compliant vendors, it sends a message that rules are optional. This isn't just unfair to compla compliant businesses, it's blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars. I'm not here today to ask for special treatment. I'm simply requesting a fair review. of the process and procedures that took place to get us to this point. A review that will consider the facts and documentation and the values that the county claims to uphold since all the bid documents and packages are public record. These are items of noncompliance that I have

   1:34:53outlined are available for anyone to review at their leisure. This isn't just about one contract, it's about several. I mean, it could be the ripple effect. How many contracts have been Awarded and that process to see if they even are in the e-verify system has it been done.

   Kathryn StarkeyChair

   1:35:11Okay. Thank you. Um I have some questions for our staff. Anybody else have any questions for her? Okay. Thank you. Um and I know you went over this when you briefed me, but if you could go over the the name and the e-bair part.

   Kathryn StarkeyChair

   1:35:30Yes, ma'am. So for Megascapes, they are the same business. They were they've been in business for over 20 years here in Pasco County. They were advised by their attorney about two years ago to separate part of their business for um legal purposes and they did so. But they are the same company with the same owners. at the same location. As far as the e-Verify requirements, the way our documents are written is it says that they have to participate in the e-Verify program. They do not have to provide us with any documentation at the time of their bid. When we asked Megascapes for proof

   1:36:00if they participated in e-Verify, they have provided it to us and they are currently registered with e-Verify.

   Kathryn StarkeyChair

   1:36:08Anybody else have any questions?

   Ron Oakley

   1:36:10Mm-hmm.

   Kathryn StarkeyChair

   1:36:11Okay.

   invocation speaker

   1:36:14Board's pleasure. Move approval of staff's recommendation. Second.

   Kathryn StarkeyChair

   1:36:19All in favor?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:36:20Aye. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. And that that includes not only upholding the the county administrator's decision, but the award of of Yes. Thank you.