Hillsborough committee records consensus scores for CDBG public‑facility RFP; several applicants lacked required appraisals

At a remote evaluation meeting for RFP P250188, the Hillsborough County evaluation committee assigned consensus scores to ten applicants competing for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) public‑facility and housing funds.

The meeting, convened under a procurement “cone of silence,” was led by Tracy Edwards, senior procurement buyer, who opened the session and recorded final consensus scores. “Please be advised that the cone of silence is still in effect,” Edwards said. The committee reviewed scoring categories that included national objective, activity timeline, project readiness (sales contract and appraisal), implementation strategy, zoning compatibility, land‑development documentation, architectural elevations, performance capacity, past subrecipient performance, leveraging, financial capacity and two bonus categories (within 1 mile of mass transit and located in a Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area).

Why it matters: the committee’s scores will be used to rank proposals for allocation of CDBG public‑facility and housing funds. Several applicants received zero points in the project‑readiness category because reviewers determined submitted materials did not meet the committee’s standard for a sales contract or an appraisal.

Committee members recorded consensus totals announced during the meeting: Kid’s Place of Tampa Bay — 70 points (priority 2); Children’s Home Network — 73 points; Florida Home Partnership Inc. — 76 points (priority 1) and 69 points (priority 2); Friends of Joshua House Foundation — 82 points; GracePointe Wellness — 69 points; New Life Village — 67 points; Sunrise Community Inc. — 72 points; Tampa Housing Authority — 47 points. (The transcript records multiple per‑project category scores and the committee’s announced totals as read into the record.)

Throughout the review, the committee repeatedly assigned zero points when a sales contract or an appraisal was not present in the application packet. On one application the committee noted that a printout from the county property appraiser’s web page is not an appraisal: "Technical, that's not an appraisal. So it's not an appraisal. Website. Okay," Willette Hollinger, planning and resource manager for affordable housing, said during the discussion. In multiple cases the land‑development/site‑subdivision presubmittal documentation and elevations were also scored at 0 when attachments were missing or incomplete.

Reviewers also discussed how to score years of project or grant experience when applicants described experience outside Hillsborough County. Committee members reiterated that scoring should be based on what is documented in each application: "You can only grade them on what they put in the app," one committee member noted. The committee treated past subrecipient status and demonstrated quarterly reporting/monitoring history as separate scoring factors; where applicants were past subrecipients the committee awarded points for project accomplishments, timely quarterly reporting and monitoring history per the scoring rubric.

No formal motion to award funds was made during the meeting; the committee recorded consensus scores for each application and Tracy Edwards said she would verify the scores in the recording spreadsheet and provide a final presentation of the scoring sheet.

The meeting was recorded and publicly noticed; members of the public were allowed to view the live stream and later reporting, but active participation was limited to committee members only, Edwards said. The committee closed the session after recording scores for all applications and confirming next steps for finalizing the evaluation packet.