Guidehouse proposal judged competent but reviewers want more detail on single‑family intake, LMI and infrastructure prioritization

Committee reviewers described Guidehouse as having institutional capacity, financial stability and relevant disaster recovery case studies, but said the firm’s submission was light on detailed single‑family intake processes, LMI (low‑ and moderate‑income) tiebacks, and infrastructure project prioritization. One reviewer noted Guidehouse provided several case studies and a proposed staffing plan, but that the submission lacked clear county‑vs‑vendor deliverable tables and detailed intake-and-review steps for single‑family housing. Another reviewer said the engagement partner listed in the proposal had only been with the firm three months, which raised staff‑continuity questions. Reviewers completed reference checks for Guidehouse but two references were unreachable and one contact offered limited feedback. Of the reachable references, the references gave high scores for knowledge of funding sources and an ability to stand up programs from scratch; one reviewer said Guidehouse was reluctant to provide voluminous OIG audit documents in one instance but otherwise performed well. Direction given: Staff will include specific Guidehouse questions in oral invitations including requests for detailed intake steps, county/vendor responsibility matrices for each deliverable, and examples showing LMI and damage‑tieback methodologies for infrastructure prioritization. Ending: Guidehouse remains under consideration pending orals and full reference responses; committee members emphasized the need for documentation showing how Guidehouse would operationalize single‑family intake and prioritization.