Ernst & Young praised for methodology and past county partnership; committee saw some gaps in infrastructure and housing scale

Committee members praised Ernst & Young (EY) for a clear methodology, strong key‑staff assignments, and an existing working relationship with the county during prior emergency programs. Several reviewers called EY’s methodology section the strongest among the proposals. Rob Hendrickson and others noted that EY’s proposal was easy to follow and the firm provided detailed case studies and balanced prime‑sub staffing. One reviewer said EY’s proposal “was an asset” and that the firm’s methodology read like an implementable plan rather than a restatement of RFP requirements. At the same time, several committee members said EY’s core strength was in program management and treasury/reporting integration rather than deep infrastructure or single‑family housing delivery at the same scale as some competitors. That gap would be probed in oral presentations and reference checks. Reference feedback was uniformly positive for EY; committee members reported receiving responsive references that gave high marks for program management, fraud prevention, and payment generation. The county’s prior positive experience with EY on CARES‑Act work also influenced reviewers’ comfort. Direction given: Staff to include questions about infrastructure experience, case‑specific deliverables, and how EY would staff and deliver single‑family housing tasks during orals. Committee members requested clarification on what EY would lead versus what subs would perform. Ending: EY remains a strong contender on methodology and program management; the committee will probe infrastructure and housing delivery specifics in oral presentations.