Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutQuestions Received and Responses No. 1 - November 30, 2022Mitchell D. Roth Mayor Lee E. Lord Managing Director Robert H. Command Deputy Managing Director Susan K. Kunz Housing Administrator Harry M. Yada Assistant Housing Administrator County of Hawai‘i Office of Housing and Community Development 1990 Kino‘ole Street, Suite 102 • Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 • (808) 961-8379 • Fax (808) 961-8685 Existing Housing: (808) 959-4642 • Fax (808) 959-9308 Kona: (808) 323-4300 • Fax (808) 323-4301 Request for Proposals Homelessness and Housing Support Grants Services, Operations & Programs Questions Received and Responses No. 1 November 30, 2022 1. On page 1 under the "At Risk" you identify 3 conditions to be "at risk." In the 2nd of those two conditions you state "subsequent residence has been identified." Does this mean that individuals or families who have not identified subsequent residence are not considered at risk? Response: There is a clerical error in the “At Risk” definition and an amendment will be issued. The phrase in question should read: “…subsequent residence has not been identified; and…” OHCD appreciates this being brought to our attention. 2. On page 5 in the first paragraph, do you really mean to equate temporary housing with emergency shelter. Generally emergency shelter is not viewed as housing, and folks residing in emergency shelters are considered homeless in the annual Point in Time count. Response: The definition for “Temporary Housing” in this RFP is meant to state that includes but is not limited to emergency shelter. Thank you for this feedback. Aspects of the RFP, including definition terms, will be revisited for future versions following this first of five fiscal year appropriations for the program. 3. On page 21 (3.2.3 Personnel) you state that "positions shall focus on housing placement, increasing income, and employment." This does not include much scope for the many supportive services that can be necessary in helping individuals and families -- especially the most vulnerable -- succeed in remaining housed once they transition out of homelessness. Housing First means that housing is the first step towards ending homelessness. However, it requires robust and varied supportive services to be successful. Questions Received and Responses No. 1 Page 2 Response: Thank you for this feedback. OHCD believes that this part of the scope language allows for a broad inclusion. The text “positions shall focus on housing placement, increasing income, and employment” is related to the example of qualified positions. It not an inclusive description of functions to be performed by staff that provides for supportive services. The duties of staff should be clearly defined in the response to the RFP. 4. On page 28 (4.5 Proposed Project Budget Guidance) it is stated "personal costs should not ideally be the primary use of grant funds." While we certainly need more affordable housing, housing first does not work without the staff to run the programs. These could include, but not be limited to, Housing Staff, Case Managers, Skills training staff, Professional staff, etc. Additionally, this guidance appears to be in conflict with the Roadmap itself which identifies "Supporting the Homelessness and Housing Support Workforce in the non-profit sector." Encouraging applicants to under-staff their programs in the proposal is not in line with the Roadmap itself. Response: Thank you for this feedback. OHCD recognizes this point of view. While the RFP language referred to states this use is not ideal, it is not an ineligible use. An organization may consider leveraging other sources of funding available for personnel costs in its proposal for this RFP. OHCD suggests referring to the Evaluation Form point structure in Section 5.3.2 on how the proposal will be scored. 5. On pp 35-36 (4 Financial) the scoring structure rewards proposals that minimize the amount administrative cost budgeted to the program. Once again I want to point out the inconsistency with the Roadmap that specifically identifies "Supporting the Homelessness and Housing Support Workforce in the non-profit sector" as a priority. Encouraging organizations to not reflect the administration cost of a proposal is not supportive. It continues the trend so well articulated on page 8 of the RFP under the description of priority 7 of, "The non-profit sector generally, and the homelessness and housing support services sector specifically, are grossly underpaid for the demands of the work, as well as the training, professional development, leadership development, and staff retainment costs." Later it continues, "Workforce development may also allow for prudent succession planning and leadership development in the sector, as well as equipping existing managers and directors with additional managerial skills development." Needless to say by encouraging agencies that artificially undercut their real administrative costs, you are inhibiting the very priorities articulated here. Response: Thank you for this feedback. OHCD recognizes this point of view and will consider this when drafting language for future RFPs to this program, after assessing applications received and outcomes produced from this first of five fiscal year appropriations. With the definition for “Administrative Costs” afforded in Section 1.1, OHCD maintains this segment of the scoring evaluation. Questions Received and Responses No. 1 Page 3 6. On page 36 (4 Financial) you ask, "Does the Applicant have other sources of funding to support the program?" While it is completely reasonable to want to encourage programs to build longevity through a diversity of funding, this sort of language and scoring strongly favors established programs and disfavors organizations that may want to expand their capacity through a new program to address the priorities in this RFP. Response: Thank you for this feedback. OHCD recognizes this point of view and will consider this when drafting language for future RFPs to this program, after assessing applications received and outcomes produced from this first of five fiscal year appropriations. For the language in this particular RFP, one goal of OHCD is to yield as much productivity as possible in the first year through leveraging of funds. 7. I notice the outcomes are different for #3 and #6. Is this intentional? (Sharon said on our call it was not intentional, therefore will the RFP be amended?) Response: Though the RFP will not be amended in this regard, the difference is not intentional. 8. If our project does not reduce homelessness for families with children (#3), it is not eligible - even if it provides support and services to families with children? (Whereas #6 doesn't have the outcome of reducing homelessness.) Response: Not proposing to reduce homelessness for families with children does not preclude a project from eligibility. Key to the priority outcomes named in the RFP is that, as indicated, these are “intended”. OHCD suggests referring to the language in: • Section 1.2 (beginning on page 5). The priority descriptions are fairly broad. You may want to also consider exploring possible alignment with Priority 8 (pg. 8 – Supporting People with Special Needs). The case for alignment with any priority may be made in the proposal narrative. • Exhibit D (Proposal Project Narrative), item 1d. The response to this item provides an opportunity to define an entity’s proposed outcomes that do not necessarily have to be identical to the intended outcomes offered. This field also allows the applicant to describe how the expected results of a proposed project will help to achieve goals from the Roadmap. 9. Is providing financial assistance for rent, lease, and utilities payments an eligible use of grant funds? Response: Yes, if there are no other federal or state finance sources available that a potential recipient is eligible for towards these purposes. Questions Received and Responses No. 1 Page 4 10. How will the priority rank be considered in scoring the proposals? For example, if a proposal addresses priority rank 1 -- Permanent Support Housing and Permanent Housing with Supports -- will that proposal receive a higher score than one that addresses priority rank #11 Expanding Bridge and Interim Housing Options? Response Priority rank will not be considered in the scoring of proposals.