Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Development Block Grant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hillsborough County committee scores 13 proposals for CDBG public-services awards; Mary House tops list
Summary
An evaluation committee for Hillsborough County reviewed 13 proposals for RFP 2600139 (PY2026 CDBG public services for affordable housing), recording consensus scores, raising recurring concerns about vague timelines and measurement plans, and producing an evaluation summary to support the county’s notice of intent to award.
The Hillsborough County evaluation committee met remotely to review and score 13 proposals submitted in response to RFP 2600139 for PY2026 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) public-service awards supporting affordable housing programs. The committee confirmed that all activity will follow the county’s procurement rules and that a procurement "cone of silence" remains in effect while the county posts its notice of intent to award.
Chief buyer Lisa Denina opened the session and outlined the process, telling the panel, "My name is Lisa Denina and I am the chief buyer for this project" and explaining that committee members would reach consensus and record scores in a shared spreadsheet. The committee applied the stated scoring categories — national objective, activity timeline, performance capacity, past performance (for prior subrecipients), leveraging, financial capacity and bonuses — and proceeded in alphabetical order through applicants.
Why it matters: the consensus scores will form the evaluation memorandum that procurement staff use to issue a notice of intent to award and to finalize contract recommendations. Denina said she would complete and print the consensus spreadsheet and obtain committee signatures before posting results.
Committee discussion frequently returned to two recurring issues. Project timelines: several members said timelines lacked month-by-month specificity or appeared to be "copy-and-paste" entries that did not show measurable progress. As Candace Hobs, project manager with Homeless and Community Resources, put it during one applicant review, "I don't feel like their timeline was detailed enough," a comment other members echoed when assigning lower timeline scores. Measurement and outcomes: members repeatedly sought clearer key performance indicators and definitions of success (for example, whether "job placement" meant any placement or placement at a living wage), and noted that some proposals included strong partnership lists but fewer concrete success metrics.
Results and top scorers: the committee recorded consensus totals for every applicant. Notable totals included Mary House Inc. at 105 points (committee members highlighted timely closeouts and past performance), Echo of Brandon and Metropolitan Ministries tied at 98 points (noted for partnerships and implementation readiness), Tampa Lighthouse for the Blind at 97, Seniors in Service of Tampa Bay at 95, and others ranging lower based on timeline or documentation concerns. Several applicants received reduced timeline scores where members found entries repetitive, vague, or missing milestone detail.
Process notes and disagreements: committee members debated how to apply the national-objective points when households served spanned multiple AMI bands; panelists agreed to award points based on "the category serving the greatest number of clients," after checking household counts. Members also differed at times on whether information placed in attachments should count toward table-only scoring; after review, those who had read attachments supported higher scores for at least one past subrecipient.
Next steps: Denina said she will prepare the evaluation summary memorandum and finalize the scoring spreadsheet for signatures. The county recording of the meeting will be posted, and the cone of silence will remain in effect until the county posts its notice of intent to award or cancels the solicitation.
