Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grants And Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners discuss competitive procurement for CDBG administrative services; county may self-administer
Summary
Hocking County commissioners heard from presenters about a competitive RFQ for administration of Community Development Block Grant programs and discussed whether the county could administer the grants directly without a third‑party contractor.
Hocking County commissioners on July 10 heard a presentation about a competitive procurement process and draft request for qualifications (RFQ) for administrative services tied to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) work for program year 2025.
County grant staff and outside presenters said the current administrative agreement covers part of the county through the end of program year 2023 and that the state is asking jurisdictions to run a competitive procurement to establish administrators for upcoming cycles. The presenters noted the county has already completed front‑end application work for several CDBG streams, including infrastructure and other programs for Logan and NRG (as presented).
The discussion focused on two questions: whether the RFQ the county has drafted requires formal approval by the board, and whether Hocking County could instead administer the grant programs itself. County staff indicated the RFQ draft was for the board’s information and that the county’s grant writer would likely manage responses. Presenters and commissioners noted that while the county can administer programs directly, grant reviewers score applicant proposals in part on administrative capacity and track record — a factor that can affect funding competitiveness.
Commissioners asked whether county administration would “negatively impact” chances for state funding; staff answered that evaluator scoring includes administrative capacity, so the choice of a third‑party administrator can affect scoring but is not an absolute bar to receiving awards. Commissioners also discussed procurement cadence: state rules effectively require a competitive procurement every two years to demonstrate an open playing field for administering assistance.
The RFQ text available to the board was described as a draft; no formal vote to adopt the RFQ took place at this meeting. Commissioners and staff indicated next steps would include finalizing the RFQ language, clarifying who will manage responses (the county grant writer was suggested), and confirming whether the county will respond as a potential administrator.
The commissioners did not take formal action on an RFQ at the July 10 meeting. Discussions and follow‑up direction concentrated on drafting a final RFQ, confirming procurement timing, and assessing county administrative capacity for future grant applications.
