A selection advisory committee for the Town of Fort Myers Beach recommended on Nov. 14 that Tidewater Landscape be ranked No. 1 and Green Construction Technologies No. 2 for RFP 26-01 PW, the town's landscaping and irrigation procurement, and forwarded that recommendation to the town manager for contract negotiation and execution.

Amy Baker, acting contracts manager and town clerk, opened the meeting and said the solicitation closed Nov. 3 at 3:15 p.m. and that the town had received two proposals. "We have a tie," Baker said after members initially totaled evaluation scores for the two firms at 29 each.

The committee — Baker; Jeff Haughey, community services director; Georgina Sid, community development manager; and Chad Shoots, environmental staff — used a 0–3 scale across four evaluation questions (experience with irrigation repairs, flat work, understanding of the project, and proposed method/qualifications). Chad Shoots argued Tidewater's proposal included "much more detailed and extensive" experience relevant to the job, especially the concrete and flat-work elements, and urged members to compare those portions of the submissions.

Georgina Sid reassessed her scores after reviewing the firms' scopes and increased Tidewater's experience score, which moved Tidewater to a total of 30 and left Green Construction Technologies at 29. "They do list a bunch of concrete work that was done, which the other company doesn't," Sid said when explaining the change.

Chad Shoots then moved "to rank Tidewater number 1 and Green Construction number 2 on the award of this RFP," and Jeff Haughey seconded the motion. The committee recorded verbal "Aye" votes from Haughey and Shoots and recommended the ranking to the town manager for contract negotiation and execution. The transcript records the committee's recommendation but does not specify whether the town council or another body must approve a final contract award or the procurement legal threshold required.

Baker said the recommendation will likely appear on an upcoming council agenda, possibly Dec. 1; committee members also mentioned mid-December meeting dates (the 15th or 20th) as alternatives. The meeting adjourned at 10:52 a.m.

Clarifying details recorded in the meeting: the solicitation deadline was Nov. 3 at 3:15 p.m.; two proposals were received; evaluation used four questions scored 0–3 and combined for totals used to rank proposers. Funding sources, contract value, and final Council approval timelines were not specified in the transcript.