Okay. Good afternoon, committee members and other parties of interest. This is the reconvened evaluation committee meeting for RFP 26-00069, Lower Green Swamp, Calhoun Raising Lease. My name is Ethan Kersey, and I'm the buyer assigned to this project. This meeting is being held in part by means of communications media and technology and has been publicly noticed. Active participation will be for committee members only. Provisions have been made for any member of the public designed to have access to view the meeting. The recording will also be available after the meeting is ended. Please be advised that the cone of silence is still in effect. All meetings and correspondence must include me. Again, for the record, this meeting is being recorded and has been publicly noticed. If you are watching online with us today, please make sure you keep your camera off and microphone muted at all times. At this time, I will ask each committee member to reintroduce themselves for the record, beginning with the committee chairperson. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Lands Management Director. Alex Lume, CO5-6 Extension, Hillsborough County, Small Harms Agent. Ken Bradshaw, Hillsborough County, Environmental Lands Management. Steve Raymond, Hillsborough County, Lands Management. Ross Dickerson, Division Manager, Environmental Lands Management. Aaron Cardenas, Procurement Engagement Coordinator for the County. Thank you. On April 28, 2026, the Evaluation Committee met and requested oral presentations from all proposers for Rp26-0069. These presentations were completed today. May 7, 2026, and the recordings of such presentations will be made publicly available. The committee will now rediscuss and either confirm or adjust their preliminary scoring of the proposers based only on the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation. Evaluation Committee Chair, Forrest Turberville, will lead the discussion. And with that, Forrest, I will turn it over to you. Okay. Real quick, before we get started, I first want to say that the references for both groups were excellent. Thank you for providing the services and everything looked very good. However, I did have one quick question for Rohard Cattle. And this relates to a reference provided by Jay Sizemore with Ultra Farms, Sizemore Growers. And item number four, within the five questions that were provided on the reference sheet, the question is, can you elaborate on the proposer's strengths, if any, and any weaknesses? And the strength that was provided by Mr. Sizemore was that they are very knowledgeable. However, the weakness states that they might take on too much. And I wanted to ask if, just note, they cannot clarify at this point. You just read this into the record. Okay. No response. No clarification. Okay. I'll just read that into the record. Okay. And so, moving forward, we'll go to A1, qualifications for Audubon Ranch. Our consensus score on this was 19. And did anybody have any additional comments, clarifications, changes for that? I'll start with you. I think my main reason for my scoring is just looking for a little more information on the cattle operations and grazing land operations. And they have provided that in the presentation. Yeah. I had no changes. I didn't have any changes. The score that we settled on or that we came to as a committee, I'm still doing. All right. Ross. I agree. After reviewing my notes and seeing the presentation, I think the committee score of 19 is appropriate. And after reviewing my score, strengths and weaknesses, I have no changes. Okay. So, the committee is comfortable saying a consensus of 19 for Audubon? Correct. Yes. Yes. Okay. A2, experience. We had a consensus score of 18. Allie, any comments, changes? My comment originally was understanding their scope of services. So, they mentioned that as well. So, I don't see changes there. Okay. Good. No, I would say that the presentation today just continued to support where I landed last time. So, no change for me. I don't have any changes. I agree. Between my notes and the presentation today, it reinforced where the committee landed at 18. Okay. Yeah. And after reviewing both my notes and in particular hearing the presentation today, it just reinforces my scoring of 18 and the consensus scoring as well of 18. Okay. So, the committee's and the grades on staying at 18? Yes. Yes. Or 18? Okay. Okay. A3, technical approach. We had a consensus scoring of 10. Allie, comments, changes? No. No changes. Ken? No change. Steve? I also do not have any change. Ross? No change for me. And after reviewing my notes, no change for me. Consensus, I recommend remain at 10. Okay. You can move on to the roll or it'll do the full rundown at the end. Okay. Great. Okay. So, A1 qualifications. We had a consensus of 17. Allie, any comments, changes? Um, no, I, I agree with my original score of 16. All right. I guess the consensus is 18. It's 17. 17. Okay. Again? No, I had no changes on the presentation score. All right. Thank you. Steve? I did not have any changes to that score. After looking at my notes and hearing the presentation, which clarified some things for me. Um, I think that sticking with the committee recommendation of 17 is appropriate. And after reviewing my notes and also the comments of everyone else during the scoring process, I agree that the consensus of 17 is appropriate. So, that's my recommendation for 17. Allie, A2 experience of consensus was 16. Allie, anything? Just based off of the follow-up presentation, it gave a little bit more information. Um, and I, I think that I've sticked with the, the 16. Can you elaborate on what information in order for the last two? Yes, sorry. Um, just understanding, um, basically their scope of services and their, um, success, um, criteria. Um, just how they elaborated on that. I feel like I would stick with the, the 16. Okay. Yeah. No change. Steve? Um, I don't, I don't have any changes. It was good to hear about, uh, the question that Ross asked about the cattle ownership or not, uh, that, that added some clarification, but I did not change my score. Ross? I have no change. Okay. And, uh, I have no change to my score of 18. Uh, again, I had documented two weaknesses in my notes, separate weaknesses, uh, could have provided more detail regarding pasture site prep, seating, and a basin plant control. Um, so I still can consider that in the original proposal as weakness, and, uh, my score of 18 stands, and the consensus of 16, I recommend stand as well. Anybody say grades? Yes. Yes. 16. Okay. Uh, A3, technical approach. Consensus scoring was nine for technical approach. Allie, any edits, changes? No, I have no changes. Ken? I had no changes. Steve? I did not have any changes. Ross? I do not have any changes. No changes for me either. Consensus, uh, I recommend stay at nine. At big ways? Yes. Yes. So I have that down as an across-the-board confirmed scores for both firms after today's presentation. Um, I'll read down the scores really quick one more time for the record. So for Audubon Ranch, for A1 qualifications, um, score confirmed is 19. A2 experience, score confirmed is 18. A3 technical approach, score confirmed is 10. They received 45.02 for their proposal price. Great total score of 92.02. Rollhard A1 qualification, 17 confirmed. A2 experience, 16 confirmed. A3 technical approach, 9 confirmed. And they received a total of 50 points for their proposal price, bringing them to a 92.02. So that was Audubon Ranch, ranked first with 92.02, and Rollhard A1 ranked second with 92.02. Does the committee agree with those score rankings? Yes. Okay, um, that will conclude the evaluation, reconvened evaluation meeting from D26-DF00069. Um, proposers, please continue to monitor in UNIF for future updates related to this solicitation, and have yourself a great day. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.