Hillsborough County’s evaluation committee met on Nov. 14, 2025, to review three shortlisted proposals for RFP B25-00378, the county’s construction-manager-at-risk contract for Community Development Block Grant–Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) single-family housing repair and replacement.

Ethan Kursey, the buyer assigned to the project, told the committee that "On 11/14/2025, we received a total of 11 proposals," and that "8 of those proposals were deemed unacceptable and will not be scored." Committee chair Robert Hendrickson framed the scale of the program, saying "this program is is a big deal" and that the housing component is "in excess of 250,000,000." No award or vote occurred at the meeting.

Why it matters: The country-scale funding and the county’s accelerated timeline mean the selected firm will be responsible for rapid repairs and rebuilds across multiple neighborhoods while meeting federal CDBG-DR compliance requirements, Davis-Bacon payroll rules, and local permitting processes.

What the committee heard: Across the three shortlisted proposers, committee members highlighted strengths and raised follow-up questions.

- Compliance and local partnerships: Nicole Gelber, compliance and monitoring manager with Affordable Housing Services, praised one bidder’s zoned approach for covering "the north, mid, and south" of the county and noted strong compliance controls, an experienced subject-matter expert, and commitments to locally based subcontractors and M/WB E participation. She asked the firm to explain a proposal statement that it would "assume the financial risk or cost overruns."

- Project controls and digital tools: Multiple reviewers commended proposals that included Procore, Smartsheet, Power BI dashboards, timestamped photo logs and QR-code access to plans for jobsite transparency. Staff said such tools help monitoring, warranty work and fraud prevention.

- Local staffing and ramp-up concerns: Several committee members asked how firms would staff projects locally. Tara Williams (architectural services manager) and others pressed proposers to clarify whether key personnel live in Florida, which roles would relocate, and how many local full-time employees each bidder would have. Committee members also asked for clearer evidence supporting claims such as "35% reduction in change orders" and faster construction metrics.

- Subcontractor and partner roles: Reviewers requested clearer subcontractor breakdowns and cautioned that some proposals listed public agencies or jurisdictions in subcontractor tables in ways that read as confusing. The committee asked proposers to make slide(s) showing which subcontractors are local or regional to demonstrate local economic impact.

- Outreach, accessibility and warranty: Panels noted proposals that included bilingual outreach, trauma-informed training, and rapid warranty response (4–5 days). Committee members welcomed these elements as helpful for resident trust and program throughput.

- Financial capacity and references: Staff asked for clarity on bonding, lines of credit and prior audit findings. One reviewer cited a proposer’s large line-of-credit figure in the proposal; Hendrickson reported staff had started reference checks and encouraged proposers to ensure their referees respond.

What the committee directed next: The evaluation panel requested oral presentations (orals) from the three shortlisted proposers and asked each firm to bring the staff who would actually run the program. Hendrickson asked bidders to be ready to explain subcontractor roles, local staffing plans, evidence behind time-and-cost savings claims, and the identity of compliance and warranty staff.

No formal selection: The meeting produced feedback and follow-up directions but no selection decision. Kursey said county staff will circulate the schedule and format for orals to shortlisted proposers and will reach out with presentation details.

The county’s next step is oral interviews, where proposers will have the opportunity to respond to the committee’s questions and to provide the clarifying examples requested. The panel did not vote or award the contract at the meeting.