Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Chdo Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hillsborough County evaluation committee records consensus scores for RFP 2500197 CHDO recertification and project proposals
Summary
A Hillsborough County evaluation committee met remotely to score proposals submitted under RFP 2500197 (CHDO certification, recertification and CHDO projects). Committee members recorded consensus category and total scores for multiple applicants and asked staff to verify the scoring spreadsheet before final presentation.
Hillsborough County evaluation committee members met by remote communication technology to score proposals submitted under RFP 2500197 for CHDO (Community Housing Development Organization) certification, recertification and CHDO projects. Committee chair Lehi Hollinger led the scoring; Tracy Edwards, senior procurement buyer, opened the session and said, “for the record, this meeting is being recorded and has been publicly noted.”
The committee assigned final consensus scores to each applicant reviewed during the meeting. Recorded totals in the transcript include CDC of Tampa (77 points), Florida Home Partnership (priority 1 project: 83 points), Habitat for Humanity of Hillsborough County (76 points), New Bike Village (76 points), and Real Estate Foundation (74 points). The committee reviewed category-level scores — including organizational capacity, past performance, project timeline, ability to proceed/shovel-ready status, construction/green design features, leveraging and financial capacity — and recorded subtotals for each application.
The nut graff: These rankings will feed the county’s procurement and award process for CHDO-related funding under RFP 2500197 and will inform any subsequent recommendations or presentations to decision-makers once staff verify the recorded scores.
Committee members discussed several recurring concerns while scoring. Multiple reviewers flagged timeline specificity as a deciding factor on project-timeline points, saying some proposals listed only a month and year rather than firm milestone dates. Panelists also noted missing or incomplete documentation for certain applicants, principally appraisals and sales contracts for acquisition projects and formal site-subdivision conference materials for projects that proposed new construction. Several reviewers said construction and green-energy details were insufficiently detailed in some submissions and therefore received lower scores in that category.
The transcript shows procedural disagreements about how strictly to apply timeline precision: one reviewer argued for enforcing stricter specificity to “set the tone” for future applicants, while others noted Florida construction and permitting realities can make precise dates difficult. The committee repeatedly separated discussion from formal scoring: reviewers gave and explained numeric scores for each subcategory, then the chair asked for the consensus number to be read aloud for entry in the scoring spreadsheet.
Specific examples recorded in the committee discussion: - CDC of Tampa: reviewers awarded full marks in organizational capacity but deducted points in project timeline and in some shovel-ready criteria where appraisals or closing dates were not explicit; final total reported as 77. - Florida Home Partnership: the organization brought two priority projects; the transcript records a subtotal of 83 points for the priority 1 project; reviewers noted limited construction/energy-details and some uncertainty about how down-payment assistance lines tied to construction timelines for one priority project. - Habitat for Humanity of Hillsborough County and New Bike Village: each received totals recorded as 76, with reviewers citing site control or documentation and variable scores on green-energy features and leveraging. - Real Estate Foundation: reviewers recorded a total of 74 and noted that the foundation’s experience was described but the packet lacked some project-specific documentation (appraisal or sales contract) in places reviewers expected them.
Committee chair Lehi Hollinger directed reviewers to read consensus scores aloud after each applicant so Tracy Edwards could record them in the scoring spreadsheet. Edwards said staff would verify the entered scores and prepare the final presentation. As Edwards stated early in the meeting, “Provisions have been made for any member of the public desiring to have access to view the meeting,” and the meeting was recorded for public posting after the session concluded.
The meeting concluded with staff instructions to confirm attachments and score entries and to present a final ranking in the administrative record. The committee did not take a formal funding award action during this session; the transcript shows only scoring and consensus recording for each proposal.
