Hillsborough County selection committee interviews Varel Project Engineering for CDBG‑DR housing services

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY — Varel Project Engineering and partner Tampa Bay Design Group gave an oral presentation to a Hillsborough County selection committee about their proposal for RPS 25-00379, the county’s request for architectural and engineering services for a Community Development Block Grant–Disaster Recovery (CDBG‑DR) single‑family housing replacement program.

The presentation, led by Leo Kennan, principal project manager for Varel Project Engineering, and architect Lee Curtis, ran under the procurement rules set by the county: 15 minutes of presentation followed by 15 minutes of committee questions. Kennan said the team’s work includes inspection and design roles on prior federally funded and state programs and emphasized documentation and quality control procedures.

Kennan highlighted the firm’s program experience and capacity, saying, “We did 18,000 of those for that program,” when describing wind‑mitigation inspections performed under the My Safe Florida Home program. He told the committee his firm uses standardized reporting and QA/QC procedures grounded in HUD Handbook 4000.1 and other industry guidelines and that the county — not the firm — retains final approval authority on scope, schedule and compliance.

Why this matters: the county is selecting an architect/engineer team to support federally funded housing replacement work that will require strict documentation for grant compliance, effective contractor oversight and the ability to scale inspections and design work across many individual home projects.

In the presentation Kennan described operational controls: each house would be treated as a separate project with critical‑path scheduling, periodic draw inspections, and payment only after approvals are confirmed. He said typical programs include a built‑in change‑order contingency and explained the approval flow: homeowner, contractor, the firm and the county must sign off on changes. “Normally on these types of programs, there’s a 10% contingency built into the scope price,” Kennan said.

Kennan also described resident engagement and inspection protocols: noninvasive inspections in occupied homes, advance notification, interviews to document homeowner preferences and multiple communication channels (phone, email, text). He named Lindsay Deloitte as the primary point of contact for residents and contract administration and said Kennan would step in for escalations.

During the committee’s questions, a member noted the proposal lacked an architect resume. Curtis apologized and summarized his decades of waterfront and residential design experience and said his registered‑architect partner is Joe Stewart. On firm capacity, Curtis said annual design revenue runs “over $500,000 a year” and that the office has room to grow.

The committee asked about past CDBG/SHIP rehabilitation costs; Kennan said that in Pembroke Pines in 2019 the average renovation was $60,000–$80,000 and estimated that in today’s dollars a house would cost roughly $100,000–$120,000 to renovate. Kennan outlined how the firm scales inspections and designs: at peak the firm did 250 inspections per day; individual wind‑mitigation inspectors typically performed 8–10 inspections per day. He said the firm has about 12 in‑house inspectors, a 13‑person design team and access to an additional 15‑person Missouri design partner — about 35 designers in overflow — and can tap a vetted network of independent inspectors when needed.

On technical scope, Kennan said the team can handle architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing design for 1‑ to 2‑story residential projects in‑house; commercial MEP work would be handled by partners. He noted one limit: they lack a threshold inspector for high‑rise work but did not expect that kind of scope for this program.

The session ended with the committee thanking the presenters and asking them to continue monitoring the procurement portal; no award or decision was announced at the meeting.

Next steps: The committee will continue evaluation of proposals and follow the county procurement schedule; presenters were instructed to monitor the procurement portal for updates.