08-14-25 Pdf | Rtf

Description

Docusign Envelope ID: 75A194E8-EAFF-4DA6-A7A0-6898ABD78D2A MINUTES OF MEETING ARMSTRONG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Armstrong Community Development District was held Thursday, August 14, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. at the Plantation Oaks Amenity Center, 845 Oakleaf Plantation Parkway, Orange Park, Florida. Present and constituting a quorum were: Jose Lopez Cameron Brown Christine Bowen Cherie Hernandez Kendrick Taylor Chairman Vice Chairman Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Also present were: Marilee Giles Katie Buchanan Jay Soriano Ryan Wilson Chalon Suchsland FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS District Manager District Counsel by telephone GMS, Operations RMS VerdeGo Roll Call Ms. Giles called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and called the roll. SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Comment There being no comments, the next item followed. THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the July 10, 2025 Meeting On MOTION by Mr. Lopez seconded by Ms. Bowen with all in favor the minutes of the July 10, 2025 meeting were approved as amended. Docusign Envelope ID: 75A194E8-EAFF-4DA6-A7A0-6898ABD78D2A August 14, 2025 Armstrong CDD FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion of Engineering Services A. Evaluation Criteria Ms. Giles stated at the last meeting staff was directed to notice an RFQ for engineering services. There was an ad published in the local paper and staff sent it to nine engineering firms that are familiar with CDDs. The criteria is set forth by the consultant’s competitive negotiations act. It is a request for qualification and pricing is not one of the criteria we are weighing. We can go by each supervisor for their ranking of each column or if there is a supervisor who wants to take the lead on it and we discuss it then do a ranking. I recommend we talk about them one at a time and weight it based on those seven criteria. I have worked with both and they are both good companies. B. RFQ Responses 1. Alliant 2. Matthews After discussion, the consensus scoring was: Alliant, category 1 20 points, no. 2 20 points, no. 3 5 points, no. 4 0, no. 5 0, no. 6 8 points, no. 7 1 point for a total of 54 points. Matthews, category 1 30 points, no. 2 30 points, no. 3 5 points, no. 4 0, no. 5 0, no. 6 10 points, no. 7 3 points for a total of 78 points. On MOTION by Ms. Bowen seconded by Mr. Lopez with all in favor Matthews was ranked no. 1 with 78 points and Alliant was ranked no.