Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Springfield councilors question housing RFP process, seek ways to help smaller developers compete
Summary
City councilors and housing staff discussed how Springfield awards city land paired with federal housing funds, with concerns that experience-based scoring favors long-established developers. Officials discussed mentorship, targeted scoring categories, and outreach to MassHousing to broaden competition.
Vice President Tracy Whitfield and city housing staff on Thursday pressed for changes to how Springfield pairs city-owned lots with federal housing dollars, saying smaller local developers face an uphill fight under current request-for-proposal (RFP) criteria.
The Economic Development Committee’s discussion focused on RFP scoring that emphasizes proposer experience and capacity, HUD documentation requirements and local efforts—such as mentorship through MassHousing—to help emerging developers compete for projects that use HOME, CDBG and other federal funds.
"I asked Lauren to send me the selection criteria," Vice President Tracy Whitfield said, describing why she convened the subcommittee. "It still feels like the same individuals are gonna be selected…if the criteria is what it is." Whitfield said newer developers who have done quality work can lose out because long-established organizations usually score higher on experience.
Director of Housing Jerry McCaffrey described the procurement approach the department uses for affordable homeownership: the city pairs city-owned lots with federal funding (HOME and other HUD sources), prepares a design so proposers bid on the same product, issues an RFP and uses a multi-department review committee to score proposals and recommend the highest scorer to the mayor. "We look at proposer history and capacity," McCaffrey said, adding that federal record-keeping and compliance are often the reasons staff favor experienced developers.
McCaffrey said projects funded with HUD money can expose the city to repayment obligations if a project fails: "If anything goes wrong…the city has to pay back non-federal funds." He and other staff said that reality requires caution when awarding federal-funded projects.
Councilors and staff discussed how the process currently attempts to broaden access. McCaffrey noted the city has used small, single-house projects and that it evaluates public-policy goals including Section 3 local-hiring commitments. He also described two forms of support for emerging developers: a state-provided technical-assistance program (via MassHousing’s neighborhood hub) and examples where smaller builders or CDCs have successfully participated.
Councilor Zaida Govan proposed creating a pipeline or a shared list of smaller local developers who could be connected to mentoring and technical assistance. "There could be a list of these smaller developers so that they could be out there," Govan said.
Committee members suggested concrete RFP changes that could increase access without compromising federal compliance: awarding extra points for local participation or equitable-development practices, piloting collaborative proposals that pair smaller developers with experienced partners, and clarifying outreach and advertising of RFPs. Councilor Kateri Walsh asked how the city advertises RFPs; McCaffrey said procurement posts notices in the central register, emails a broad list of interested parties, and uses social media and local publications.
Participants also asked whether recent large grants explain why some organizations win multiple parcels. McCaffrey said organizations such as Home City Development and Wayfinders secured major outside funding (he cited a $2,000,000 NSP award to Home City) and contributions that let them bring capital to projects—information that often makes their proposals more feasible.
Committee members and staff agreed to explore noncoercive steps to expand competition: better outreach about technical assistance, revising scoring language to reward community collaboration or local partnerships, and convening a public forum with MassHousing to explain mentoring opportunities. No formal motion or vote was recorded during the subcommittee meeting.
The discussion closed with participants agreeing to continue work on language and outreach that might help smaller local developers qualify for federal-funded housing projects while preserving required federal compliance.
