Evaluation committee ranks Ducky Recovery first in RFP RP25-00378 for CDBG‑DR single‑family repairs

The Hillsborough County evaluation committee on Feb. 9 reconvened to score oral presentations for RFP RP25-00378, the construction manager at‑risk contract for the county’s CDBG‑DR single‑family housing repair and replacement program. Ethan Kursi, the buyer assigned to the project, opened the meeting and said the committee would "discuss and score the proposals based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation."

Committee members evaluated firms across four categories: ability of the firm and its personnel (40 points), experience with similar projects (30 points), approach to project delivery (20 points) and resources to meet schedule (10 points). Rob Hendrickson, the committee chair, conducted reference checks for each proposer and summarized those results during the scoring discussion.

Ducky Recovery emerged as the top‑ranked proposer. Members praised its community outreach and contractor coordination, and one committee member highlighted the firm’s record: "They have an excellent track record over 2,200 rehabs," said Brenda Viasio of Affordable Housing. Hendrickson said he contacted Ducky’s four references and that "the scores on the quantitative questions out of 5 averaged 4.8, which is a very good number," with references indicating they would work with the firm again. After consensus scoring the group recorded Ducky’s category scores as 36 (ability), 26 (experience), 18 (approach) and 9 (resources) for a total reported as 89 points.

Lemoine placed second with a reported total of 87. Committee members noted strong documentation practices, training for subcontractors (including trauma‑informed approaches), and audit readiness as strengths. Some reviewers questioned the direct comparability of two of Lemoine’s example projects to single‑family CDBG‑DR work, but reference checks and oral presentation answers supported a high overall score.

Dynamic ranked third with a reported total of 85. Reviewers singled out Dynamic’s technology tools — including QR‑code tracking and monthly monitoring scorecards — and noted the firm’s demonstrated financial capacity and program flow; a few members expressed caution about partner outreach capacity and lead times for certain subcontracting arrangements. Hendrickson reported Dynamic’s reference‑check averages were above typical thresholds and that references generally said they would contract with Dynamic again.

Throughout the meeting the committee emphasized consensus scoring and confirmed that all three proposers passed required financial capability checks. Kursi noted recordings of the oral presentations would be posted publicly, and staff were directed to continue monitoring the solicitation posting (UNO) for related updates. The evaluation committee concluded its work and adjourned that evening.