Hey, good afternoon, committee members and other parties of interest. The evaluation committee meetings for RFP 2600304, the program year 2026, new construction development of county-owned affordable housing infill property will be held in part by means of communication technology. Active participation will be for committee members only. Provisions have been made for any member of the public desiring to have access to view the meeting. My name is Sybil Tucker. I am the buyer for this project. For the record, this meeting is being reported and has been publicly noticed. At this time, I will ask each committee member to introduce themselves for the record, beginning with the committee chair. Good afternoon, Wollett, housing planning and resource manager, affordable housing services. Eric Watkins, real estate manager, facilities management, real estate services. Shirley Macquarie, affordable housing services project manager. So, Carl Waller, homeless and community services project manager. Carl Waller, compliance communities and conservation strategic planning. Okay. So, for the record, we received proposals from 10 applicants after review for the housing and the proposals from AAA Builders, LLC, Rebuilding Together, Greater Florida, Shakers 8, the Bernard Coffey Veterans Foundation, and We Dream Community Development Corporation Unacceptable. The committee will evaluate, discuss, and score by consensus the remaining acceptable proposals from Archway Partners, LLC, Foxworth Village Land, LLC, HTG and Manifest Statements Worldwide, Inc., Lincoln Avenue Communities and Sunshine Community Housing Development Organizations, Organization Inc., Priorities 1, 2, and 3. Each proposal will be evaluated based on the information provided. Tender proposals will be supported based on the following criteria. Criteria 1, project team experience for a possibility of 15 points. Criteria 2, the experience of new proposals or performance of past sub-recipients for a possibility of 15 points. Development proposal. Criteria 3, development proposal and project readiness and ability to proceed for a possibility of 30 points. Criteria 4, the public benefit, possibility of 20 points. Criteria 5, leveraging for a possibility of 20 points. Criteria 6, the financial documentation for a possibility of 10 points. Criteria 7, financial capacity for a possibility of 20 points for an overall possibility of 130 points. The evaluation chair will be leading the discussion for the scoring after each category. Criteria 6, the committee will come to a consensus score, a grain upon all, and I will record those scores for the record. At the conclusion of the scoring, I will verify the scores with the committee, and we will identify the ranking at that time. So at this time, I will turn the meeting over to the committee chair to begin the discussion. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for your time and your attention to these proposals for us today. We're going to do them in alphabetical order, starting with Archway, and I'll say either past or new. That'll tell you which ones we're going to be scoring and which ones you're not. You're not going to be scoring. So Archway is a past sub-recipient, and we'll start with, I'll start on the end, but the first one is developer capacity qualifications, approach, and ability to proceed. Project team experience. Do we want to go individually or give the score total and what would be beneficial to you all? So, yeah. So do you want to give the total score, or do we want to, because they're going to, three, four, five, six, for a total of 15 points. Oh, okay. Yeah. You just want to give your total score, and we go back, we back into it. Okay. So I'll start with it. So you have to start with me. Okay. My first time. Well, okay. Eric, can you start with me? I'm going to start with our veteran. Eric? 15. Okay. What was it? 15. The curve? Same. 15. Oh, 15. Oh, sorry. So we have the census of 15 for the first one. One, hey. So we flip over. They are a past sub-recipient, and you want to put a score we gave for the past sub-recipient, surety. So for Archway, performance of past sub-recipients, projects met all accomplishments with no funds return and timely closeout, nine points. Quarterly reporting on time, two points. Monitoring and compliance issues, findings, or concerns, two points. For a total of 13 points. So 13 is the score for 1B. And then for two, development proposal and projects, readiness, ability to proceed, Eric? 26. Horace? 27. 26. The preliminary site plans and architectural. So two of you had 26, one of you had 27. Yes. Let's discuss the 26. So, Horace, you thought they had 20, everything. I thought they had 27. 27. Yes. Okay, so where are our points off at? Is it the zoning or the preliminary schedule? So for the preliminary schedule, I had three. You have three. Yes. Yes. Okay. So why is it that? The zoning? I think I have three. Three each. Well, yeah, you are. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Let's see. Listing of design, construction, completeness, design, construction, plan with materials, practice, and energy, water, conserving infrastructure, interior building and relations, elevations and architectural elements consistent with accounting's expectations that we all have a three here? So, I mean, if so far, zoning accountability, I have three with a question mark. Okay. So I can go with a three there. So everybody, you all had a consensus it was three? Yes. Okay. So elevations with other architectural elements consistent with accounting's development? Three. System of development and expectations. Uh-huh. I have two for that. Okay. So that's probably where we're talking about right there. Yes. I could not find, uh, it indicated that the, you know, recent little conference notes. I did not see all of those. But I'm playing catch up. So I kind of just missed it. Okay. Did you all have it, Takara? Okay. Yes. You had it and you didn't. Okay. Um, what about the narrative describing the plans for long-term ownership? If we all have a three there? I have a three. Okay, cool. Um, any land development, site and subdivision, precept mental conference documentation provided? Sorry. I didn't see that information. Okay. So there need to be written there for the slides. Okay. So I'm just going to confirm, certainly. Okay. So is the consensus 27 then? Yes. Okay. And for three public benefit, how would you score Eric? 15. 10 cards? I scored 10. Takara? I have an 18. So do you target special needs households in or in the court? I have five. Okay. Project provides housing for residents that are homeless, at risk of homelessness, homeless, or emergency homelessness, at zero. Projects prioritizing strategies to remove barriers, at zero. No one's getting set, am I? It's not where we're different. Right. So the notes that they did not target. Okay. Special needs households. Right. Unless I interpreted the question correctly, but it said it didn't target, especially in these households. So I saw that it took part of June. I have to say anything, especially when I decided to get them. Right. Yeah, they're fine for that one. So the, so. Okay. I'm sure. Yeah. So what's the consensus? 15. I just want to review that because you have five. Yeah. Yeah, I don't have any question. Oh, so I can use. Yeah. I can't tell you the picture. What happened here? I can't tell you the picture. Yeah. I can't tell you the picture. Yeah. They did check. Yeah. Special needs. And the. Page. Page 22. So I had five for that. Page 22. I had five for that. On the special needs, I had five. It's the second one, causing for risk of homelessness. Oh, okay. I have zero for that. Okay. Page 19. I think that's on page 23. It is. Project is not targeting households or family persons at risk of homelessness. So yeah. That's why I had zero. Gotcha. So are we as 10 or 15? So I had zero there. And then the very last one. But 25 says 50% of units developed for out of below 50% AMI. I think the application said they were only only at 25%. Did I read that correct? It's below the threshold. It's below the threshold. And we go back to the other one concerning the homelessness, because I think I may be misinterpreted. Does the entirety of the project need to target? Yeah, just abortion. Okay. Because in 2023, the proposal seeks to set aside broken 19 units of homeless housing across the entire proposed development. So I took that to me that they were providing housing for residents that are at risk. I don't know if there was a threshold or anything like that that needed to be had as long as they were at page 23. Page 23 in the box. It says the project is not targeting households or at risk or homelessness or the 10% set aside is for the low barrier units to remove barrier barriers from them getting into the housing. Addressing a specific question. It says they're not targeting any but no percent of the other is targeting posts. And what you saw, Eric, was the third one. At least 10% of the units were targeting low burial access. Of course, if you're in the fourth, the housing we're targeting. So I'm afraid. So are we at a 10 or a 10? So I'm at a zero on the second one. All right. And then the very last one, the AMI, there's only 25% and the question says 50% of the units are going for out of below 50% AMI. So at zero, they've also. So it sounds like you're adding 10. Yes. Do you all agree with this? Yes. Okay. So for number three, it's a 10. Civil core. Leveraging. Surely. 20 points. 22. Leveraging. And for number five. Financial documentation. 10 points. No financial capacity. 15 points. 18. I don't want to recap that statement. Okay. I want to make sure. Yeah. All right. So just to recap the consensus scores and the scores provided by affordable housing for archway partners. LLC for criteria one. A. We had a consensus of 15. Criterion one. B. We had a consensus of 13. Criterion two. Consensus of 27. Criterion three. A score of. A consensus of 10. Criterion four. We have a score of 20. Criterion five. A score of 10. And a. For criteria six. A score of 15. That will lead. Give us 110 points. Total. The next one we have is Foxworth Village. And this is a past subrecipient as well. We'll start with you. Forrest. Number one developer capacity. One A. I should say. I have 15. 15. It's a quote. I'm just saying. Excellent. Thank you. So it's a consensus. So one A is 15. They're past subrecipient surely. Projects met all accomplishments with no funds return and timely close out. Nine points. Quarterly reporting on time. Two points. Monitoring and compliance issues, findings, concerns. Two points. For a total of 13 points. And number two. Development proposal and project readiness ability to proceed. Points. I have 27. 10. 6. 25. 25. 24. Are you willing to go to 27? 27 is the consensus for number two. 27. Yes. 3. Public benefit. 15. 18. 15. 17 is the consensus. 4. Leveraging surely. 20 points. 20 for leveraging. 10 points. And for financial capacity. 19 points. Yeah. All right. So to recap the story. For Foxburg Village Land LLC. For criteria 1A, we had a consensus of 15. Criteria 1B, consensus of 13. Criteria 2, consensus of 27. Criteria 3, consensus of 15. For criteria 4, we had a score of 20. Criteria 5, a score of 10. Criteria 6, score of 19. For a total of 119 points. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That's what we have. There is the Housing Trust Group, LLC, and Manifestations Worldwide Incorporated. And this is a moveset recipient. This would be a moveset recipient for us. For number one, it's a card. I'm trying to get my, I'm trying to get my, I'm trying to get my, I'm trying to get my open. Yes. At 13. The HTG. Yes. In manifestation. 15. 15. 15. Eric? 13. Okay. Did you feel they were lacking? Eric? The first two. He was green and then the tax clearance. What about you, Tukar? Who was the tax? You're saying, given the 0 for tax clearance, what's the other one? Then it wasn't, given the 0 for tax clearance was the other one, oh. It wasn't, I believe it happened, but past Dec. Four was the tax clearance. deed, Addy Clulence. Tax card four? Yes. Senior Gloucester Who wasley Sourah, here. We have to ignore this tax compliance. I'm going to be very involved with 10 entities tax returns for the past six years. So that's why I always believe the entity has a good compliance history with the internal service and has no outstanding tax liabilities. I can show you the document. My question is, who are all the equity, each sponsor, partner, and equity members? The first group is going to manifestation worldwide, forming the FLC. And you had the organization overviews. Sheryl Smith and State Building as a point zero zero one percent general partner. Maybe I just didn't see everything I needed to see. A point zero for the overview history. Yes. And then it also had the key personnel and staff. That's not what you're attacking. What was attachment three? That was the organizational. Okay. Okay. Are we here? Thirteen or fifteen? Fifteen. What was the attachment one? You say attachment one was the overview. I'm sorry. Keeping the staff and personnel. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's not really what it's massive. Free was the also view, which is just how we've done it. How can see each of the two? It was the area. Maybe I'll use the area. Can you share that area? Yeah. Consistency. You know, the confusion I got with this organization. Yeah, I'm done. So the consensus is fifteen? Oh, fifteen. Yes. There was one. And then one. This was a new, so one day, I guess, experience of new proposer. What would you score to come? Uh, that was our which one? It was the first time. How are you doing? The scope and manifestations will run. This past the fall is going on now. No, we're experiencing new proposer. Okay. And then twenty-five? I think I'm looking at it already. It was, um, fifteen. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So did they have five plus years experience in Hillsborough County? Two of them, I think so. Maybe that's where, maybe that's where I messed up. Yeah. And it was in Hillsborough County that you were still referring to, correct? What was your score, Irving? What was your score? 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. If you didn't get some reports. Well, maybe it's not on the right end of the right place. It was either 15, 12, nine. Oh. Yeah. It was helpful if you don't bring them on print. I'll just say 0. Fuck Africa 9. I'll just say 20 was the Hallelujah. So 9 is the consensus for the new proposal. I want the intent for the new city. Did you say the onion was the consensus? I mean, what's the consensus on space for one day? Yeah, one day one. Yes, moving on to number two, development, proposal and project readiness, ability to proceed. The last one is the proposal. Correct. Two. So that one, there's no pass for fellows? No. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Can I go? Sure. I didn't know she was really in that. Oh, yeah. Twenty seven. Yes. Yeah. Twenty seven. Twenty seven. Twenty seven. Twenty seven is the census for two. Twenty seven. Yes. Number three was public benefit from air. I've got 15. I've got 15. 15. 15. 15 for number three. Four and 11, surely. 20 points. Financial documentation. 10 points. Financial capacity. 15 points. Okay. So to recap the scores. Okay. So to recap the scores for HTG and Manifestations Worldwide Inc. For criteria 1A, we have consensus of 15. Criteria 1B, consensus of 9. Criteria 2, consensus of 27. Criteria 3, consensus of 15. Criteria 4, we have a score of 20. Criteria 5, score of 10. Criteria 6, score of 15. Criteria 6, score of 15. Criteria 6, score of 15. For a total of 111 points. One, it's new. Snowden Avenue. Capital Management, LLC. Criteria 6, the doctor. Criteria 6, score of 15. Criteria 6, score of 15. For a total of 111 points. One, it's new. Snowden Avenue. Capital Management, LLC. The doctor. We have a salary. We have a salary. We have a salary. I'm sorry. I didn't realize this, this is my first one. So this is a lot more intense than I expected. I'll start with Eric. I got 14. 14. 14. What did you get on the phone? Yeah. The tax certificate. All I saw was a letter. All right. We are looking. We are making. Yes. Okay. Okay. Question or? Yeah. Okay. All right. Question or? Yeah. Okay. All right. Then I have work. I can put you here. Yeah. Okay. All right. Question or? Yeah. Okay. All right. Question or? Yeah. Okay. All right. So. Tax clearance. Second one. Find anything. All right. So that was zero from them. What did you give them on their project? I gave them one. Okay. Your portfolio. I wanted your experience. One. Specific abilities of the organization. It was one. That was a one. And then the last one wasn't. I thought the five. Right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So are we at a consensus of a nine or 14? Okay. All right. Okay. So this is new. So this would be experiencing a Liverpool one a or one B in nine. special. Three plus years experience with other local governments and other agencies or she saw 15 years in Hillsborough County. I'll concede. Yeah. Well, the consensus is 15. Okay. So the consensus is 15. Okay. So the consensus is nine. Yes. Okay. Nine. Yes. Okay. Nine. Yes. Okay. Nine. Thanks. Confusion. A for pass a recipient development proposal and project. Where do we supersede course? One. Error. To come. 23. Okay. So my questions were at the preliminary schedule that includes, you know, permitting approvals and so forth. I had a question there. And then also the elevations and all the architectural elements. Zero there. And then for the very labs, it's one for land development site. The subdivision. Zero there. So you guys. So we were at 21, correct? Yes. Yeah. What did you guys have for? You know, how many and so forth? The second one. The second one. Yeah. Three. Yeah. Let's just stop the time. Let's just do that. So that was great. Yeah. Two. Yeah. What did you have? Three. Three. Four. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Exterior building elevations. Very elevation and architectural elements. I hope to have a zero. Also, what it only is indicated by the panel in the site of some position, piece of the conference notes that you have. I don't know. That's why I didn't find the conference notes. They will have zero. That's elevation, right? That's that. Yes. And then the next one is somewhere, preliminary facility plan. So I've been playing number three. Three, zero. There, three, three. Okay. And narrative describing the plan of the long-term ownership? Three. On the site, a person in the conference documentation provided with them. Zero. Zero. Well, they have the application. I don't want them, but I saw something scheduled. And I think there were several that were scheduled before this meeting, so I didn't see any confirmation that they took some place. So I gave them a little one for them. Yeah. All right. So I'll be one family and then three. Twenty-two. Twenty-two. Twenty-two. Twenty-two. It's a consensus for that. Yes. Twenty-two. Yes. Twenty-two. Yes. For two. Twenty. Twenty-two. Twenty-two. Twenty-two. Twenty-two. Fifteen. Twenty-two. Twenty. The second one, zero. Object of Titans for Address for Homelessness. It's in itself. Each. Each. Twenty-two. Eight. Twenty-three. There was nothing there. There's no attachment. But when I can say that I can identify, what I gave by on 15. so I did not see the boxes they checked provided documentation so are we the special needs I saw that um so are we at a consensus for 15. yeah for the consensus for three it's 15 15. you're leveraging Cheryl 20 points financial documentation 10 points for new and for natural capacity 18 points the recap of the scores for Lincoln Avenue communities criteria 189 points criteria 1d consensus of 9 criteria 2 consensus of 22 criteria 3 consensus of 15 criteria 4 score of 20 criteria 5 score of 10 criteria 6 score of 18 for a total of 103 points for this last one sunshine community housing development incorporate children they had three composers in the first one was um in order 13 11 Waikiki and Tong River it will start with the first one for Waikiki um air 15th the project narrative that describes the plot the proposes capacity to compete the project on time out of zero uh it's here narrative so they experience as a portfolio of an insane narrative oh here in the paragraph one which speaks to their experience as a children uh uh uh but then you go to 15 yes okay for the consensus for number one is 15 and 15. and they are a pass of recipients so I'm sure what's going to be providing projects not all accomplishments with no funds returned in time to close out nine points quarterly reporting on time two points and monitoring and compliance issues findings or concerns four points for a total of 15 points this development proposal and project readiness building to proceed eric 26 26 the consensus is 26 for number two six public benefit uh zero zero zero from public benefit yes so would it project targeted it especially in these households a question about that because they but it's okay for all they're going to be those decisions right that was pretty much to response to most of those questions yeah right so that's right before we didn't specifically target something generalization right so i'm not able to move to zero okay so are we at consensus of zero okay so three number three is zero zero four leveraging sherlotte 12 points financial documentation seven points 14 points so the recap for sunshine community housing development organization 8 priority one or criteria 1a they had we had a consensus of 15 or 31b consensus of 15 criteria 2 consensus of 26 criteria 3 consensus of zero criteria 4 score of 12 criteria 5 score of 7 criteria 6 or 14 for a total of 89 points the second proposal was for 4. 75 15 these 21st avenue in the eastern period market and developer capacity and qualifications and action 15 15 or 16 correct yes okay uh 15 15 15 is for the consensus number They are opposed to recipient surely projects met all accomplishments, but no thoughts return in time to close out nine points quarterly reporting on time, two points and monitoring of compliance issues, findings or concerns, both points or total of 15 points, 15 points. Developing a proposal and project readiness ability to proceed, Eric, 26, 26, no, 25, 26, no, 25, 36, no, 25, no, 26, no, 26, number three, benefit zero C feeling for縁 support andnel stock points, financial documentation 7 points, and financial capacity 14 points. Okay, so to recap the scores for Sunshine Community Housing Development Organization priority two, criteria 1As, consensus of 15, criteria 1B, score 15, criteria 2, consensus of 26, criteria 3, consensus of 0, criteria 4, score 12, criteria 5, score 7, criteria 6, score 14 for a total of 89 points. The last one is for 1412 Law Street in Pratt City, or the first one developer, excuse me, capacity, developer capacity qualifications, approach and ability, Eric. 15. 14. 15. Oh, we use that 15? Yes. Project narrative. Over the consensus of 15. Yes. Okay, so 15 for no one. 15. That's the specific term. Projects met all accomplishments with no funds return and time to close out, nine points. Quarterly reporting on time, two points. Monitoring and compliance issues, findings or concerns, four points for a total of 15 points. Development for folks on project readiness, ability to proceed for it. To focus it. Yeah. Paras. I had 20. I had 25. The first one, I had three. You got it. The second one I had two. It's a zoning compatibility. Three. I'm listening to design construction. Three. Designed slash construction panels and materials. I have three. Exterior building other elevations. I have three question mark for elevations and other architectural elements. It said plant city. They didn't require. There's a depreciation middle conference. That was confirmed. So it's not maybe helping us. No, it could be. They would get to that. That's a tough one. Right. Because it falls in the county, but they don't require for their building in plant city. The construction project and. So I was organized. The account had. Oh, were there notes? It's an office. I think it was attachment 11. It's your question. If we're going up. The municipality reacts as the. Yeah, I think. Oh, Travis. Oh, yeah. I couldn't agree. But I'll say. The municipalities that they're permitting. They're on super seat. Super seats. Yeah. We all did all the. Okay. All right. So that's the case. Great. I understand. What did you guys have? Okay. Well, 26. 21. 225. Zero. Pardon? Just this. Describing the plans for a long-term ownership. That was page 20. Oh, yeah. This is. or describing the plan to ensure a third-year affordability or a single form of ownership. We should scroll up about that overall. No, that's what I want to do. Yes. I would probably want to change it by the other three, but I agree with you that it does lack the detail on the long-term narrative, but Yeah, I can draw a clip down, so that dates until 23 February. So for number two is 23. 23 is conservative? Yes. Number three for the benefit of zero. Zero. Yeah. Number three is zero. Leveraging Shirley, 12 points. Financial documentation, seven points. Financial capacity, 14 points. Thanks. The source for the Sunshine Community Housing Development Organization for Priority 3. Criteria 1A had consensus of 15. Criteria 1B had a score of 15. Criteria 2 and a score of 23. Criteria 3, we had a consensus of zero. Criteria 4, score of 12. Criteria 5, a score of 7. Criteria 6, a score of 14 for a total of 86 points. Criteria 4, a score of 14 for a total of 86 points. Okay, so just to finalize and recap the scores for each of the proposers, we have proposer number one, Archway Partners LLC for Criteria 1A, we had a consensus of 15. Criteria 1B, consensus of 13. Criteria 2, consensus of 27. Criteria 3, consensus of 10. Criteria 4, a score of 20. Criteria 5, a score of 10. Criteria 6, a score of 15 for a total of 110 points. For Foxworth Village Land LLC, Criteria 1A, we had a consensus of 15. Criteria 1B, a score of 13. Criteria 2, a score of 27. Criteria 3, a score of 15. Criteria 4, a score of 20. Criteria 5, a score of 10. Criteria 6, a score of 19 for 819 points. For HTG and Manifestations Worldwide Inc. Criteria 1A, we had a score of 15. Criteria 1B, a score of 9. Criteria 2, a score of 27. Criteria 3, a score of 15. Criteria 4, a score of 20. Criteria 5, a score of 10. Criteria 6, a score of 15 for a total of 111 points. Lincoln Avenue Communities. Criteria 1A, we had a score of 9. Criteria 1B, a score of 9. Criteria 2, a score of 22. Criteria 3, a score of 15. Criteria 4, a score of 20. Criteria 5, a score of 10. Criteria 6, a score of 18 for 103 points. So for Sunshine Community Housing Development Organization, Priority 1 Application. Criteria 1A, we had a score of 15. Criteria 1B, a score of 15. Criteria 2, a score of 26. Criteria 3, a score of 0. Criteria 4, a score of 12. Criteria 5, a score of 7. Criteria 6, a score of 14 for a total of 89 points. For Sunshine Community Housing Development Organization, Priority 2 Application. For Criteria 1A, we had a score of 15. Criteria 1B, a score of 15. Criteria 2, a score of 26. Criteria 3, a score of 0. Criteria 4, a score of 12. Criteria 5, a score of 7. Criteria 6, a score of 14 for a total of 89 points. Sunshine Community Housing Development Organization, Priority 3 Application. For Criteria 1A, we had a score of 15. Criteria 1B, a score of 15. Criteria 2, a score of 23. Criteria 3, a score of 0. Criteria 4, a score of 12. Criteria 5, a score of 7. Criteria 6, a score of 14 for a total of 86 points. Scores, acronym, is everyone in agreement with those scores? Yes. Yes. All right. So that will conclude the discussion and scoring for today's meeting. I do want to remind everyone of the cone of silence that it is still in effect until that notice of intent to award is posted and the five-day protest period ends. So all questions, comments, concerns seem to be directed to me, preferably through the unit of procurement system for the applicants that are watching. Committee members, I just want to remind you all as well to please prohibit your communication with any of the composers regarding this project. Of course, you know, if you have other projects with them outside of this one, communication is still allowed, but not for this project. So please keep that in mind. Cone of silence is still in effect. So I want to thank everyone for your time and your participation in this committee. Well, you will be required to prepare a summary, submit that summary to the procurement office. Once that summary is received, then the notice will be prepared and we will post that notice of intent to award in the unit system and for the public to see. So again, with that said, we're going to conclude today's Evaluation Committee meeting for RFP 2600304, the program year 2026, the new construction development of county-owned affordable housing infield property. Thank you all again for your time today.